Will Harvard Continue to Lead the Charge? - Part 40

From Bloomberg: Harvard University said it would turn over employment forms for thousands of staff to comply with demands from the Department of Homeland Security. The federal inquiry applies to all current employees and any individual who worked for the university in the past year, Harvard said late Tuesday in a message to its community. Federal regulations entitle the government to review paperwork known as Form I-9 documents, which include information on employment eligibility. Harvard said it won’t share records for students employed in roles only available to students and that it’s evaluating whether such a request complies with privacy protection obligations.

The DHS notice of inspection for the employment forms is separate from its earlier subpoenas seeking information on Harvard’s international students... A Harvard spokesperson declined to comment beyond the message to university employees. What began as criticism over the university’s handling of antisemitic incidents on campus has since morphed into a bigger standoff over accusations of political bias and criticism of diversity initiatives...

Full story at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-29/harvard-will-comply-with-white-house-demands-for-employee-forms.

Who Should Pay How Much for What?

The Academic Council at the end of June wrote a letter to the systemwide VP of HR concerning upcoming increases in the cost of UC's health insurance plans for employees and retirees. These increases are expected to be large. So the question is how to allocate the increased costs among the plans offered by UC.

The systemwide Faculty Welfare and Health Care committees had advised the Council about the size of the increase and focused a lot of attention on the differential cost to participants between the HMO plans (especially Kaiser) and the UC Care option which offers more choice of providers. Decreasing the differential could lead to more participants migrating from the less costly HMO to the more costly UC Care. On the other hand, since it is believed that more healthy persons tend to choose the cheaper HMO and sicker people tend to choose UC Care, UC Care is potentially endangered by a "death spiral" such that at the margin the healthier segment of people in UC Care migrate to the HMO - thus increasing the cost per participant in UC Care and stimulating yet more migration.

To avoid a death spiral, the two advisory committees advised maintaining the differential between the HMO and UC Care.

When the Academic Council received the recommendations, it endorsed them. But it went further and added something not in the advisory letters: the role of retirees in the costs of the plans. Since retirees tend to be older - and thus have more health issues - their role would seem to be significant. However, it is important to note that most of the older retirees are under Medicare as the primary insurer. Hence, a significant chunk of their cost comes from Medicare.

It is unclear what caused the Academic Council to raise the retiree issue since it was not mentioned in the advisory letters. Below is the Academic Council's recommendation and the two advisory recommendations.

===

Academic Council

June 30, 2025

Cheryl Lloyd

Vice President, Systemwide Human Resources

Re: Setting 2026 Rates for University Employee Health and Welfare Benefits

Dear Vice President Lloyd,

On behalf of the Academic Council, I am forwarding the attached letter from the University Committee on Faculty Welfare (UCFW), which the Council endorsed at its June 25, 2025 meeting. The letter reflects the recommendations of both UCFW and its Health Care Task Force (HCTF) regarding potential health plan premium changes for 2026.

While the Council supports the recommendations, members expressed concern that the long-term sustainability of UC Care is in question. Council believes that a detailed analysis is urgently needed. Council is interested in a better understanding of the extent to which UC Care increases costs for employees enrolled in other plans, via internal subsidies. What would be most helpful is an analysis that evaluates not only the fiscal trajectory of UC Care but also models the impact on HMO plans if UC Care were no longer offered, including any redistribution of risk and resulting premium changes.

In addition, Council requests a clearer picture of retiree enrollment and cost patterns across available plans. This includes:

• The number of retirees enrolled in each plan,

• The cost of providing benefits to retirees as a proportion of total health expenditures, and

• The ability of the University to support retiree health benefits at historic levels in the current environment of escalating cost pressures.

We share the Senate committees’ concerns about potential changes that may disproportionately impact lower-paid employees or undermine the equity and affordability of future health and benefits offerings. At the same time, we are mindful of the University’s budget challenges and the need to preserve access and sustainability across all plan options.

Sincerely,

Steven W. Cheung

Chair, Academic Council

--

Enclosures (#1, #2)

--

cc: Academic Council, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Brostrom, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Nava, Executive Vice President Rubin, Vice President and Chief of Staff Kao, Executive Director Jenkins, HCTF Chair Mays, Professor Richard Kronick, Senate Representative to the Executive Steering Committee on Health Benefits Programs, Senate Division Executive Directors, Senate Executive Director Lin

===

Enclosure #1

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON FACULTY WELFARE

Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra, Chair

June 23, 2025

Steve Cheung

Chair, Academic Council

Dear Chair Cheung,

The University Committee on Faculty Welfare, upon advice from its Health Care Task Force (“HCTF”), asks Academic Council to endorse and convey the attached recommendations concerning changes to the health plans offered by the University of California (“UC”). Proposed approaches to determine employer and employee contributions to the health plans offered by UC generated concern among experts of HCTF and UCFW at large. UCFW agrees with HCTF in the urgency of conveying these concerns to leadership in Human Resources and the Executive Advisory Steering Committee.

UCFW agrees with HCTF’s recommendation that the University increase its health insurance contributions by at least the same percentage as the average premium hike. For example, if premiums go up by 10.5%, a matching increase from the University would still leave employees paying more. Anything less than that, such as an 8.5% increase, would result in employees facing a disproportionate rise in their share—potentially over 20%.

While we agree that UC Care should be kept financially stable, we oppose changes that would significantly reduce the differential in employee premium contributions for UC Care compared to Blue and Gold. We understand that HR is considering making the difference between UC Care and Blue and Gold in employee premiums much smaller in 2026 than it was in 2025. Narrowing that gap could encourage employees to choose a more expensive care option, which may not be in the University's best interest. 

Reducing the differential undermines current incentives and could lead to increased overall health care costs.

UCFW is also especially concerned with changes that reduce the premium gap between Kaiser and Blue & Gold, since 42% of employees are enrolled in Kaiser. Plans to lower the University’s contribution to Kaiser would shift more costs to employees, particularly those in lower pay bands, and unfairly penalize a large portion of the workforce. We urge holding off on any major changes for 2026 until a broader review of pay band contribution policy is completed for 2027.

UCFW and HCTF have a long and established record of working with the administration in shaping the health benefits for UC employees. Some key features of UC’s approach to benefits are the direct result of HCTF’s efforts. Given this record, we hope that HCTF’s recommendations will continue to shape the design of health benefits going forward.

Sincerely,

Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra, Chair

UCFW

Cc: Ahmet Palazoglu, Academic Council Vice Chair, Monica Lin, Systemwide Academic Senate Executive Director, Juan Pablo Pardo Guerra, UCFW Chair

===

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON FACULTY WELFARE

HEALTH CARE TASK FORCE

Vickie Mays, Chair

June 23, 2025

Juan Pablo Pardo-Guerra

Chair, University Committee on Faculty Welfare

RE: Setting Rates for Health and Welfare Benefits, FY 2026

Dear Chair Pardo-Guerra,

The UCFW Health Care Task Force (HCTF) continues working closely with systemwide Human Resources (HR) and its consultant Mercer on the methods and approaches to be used in setting the 2026 employer and employee contributions to the UC health and welfare plan offerings. HR will make decisions at the end of July following advice from the Executive Advisory Steering Committee (EASC), which is scheduled to meet on July 28. Much work has taken place between HCTF and HR/Mercer, and while some changes were made to the original plans, we strongly feel that now is the time for the Academic Senate to strongly convey our concerns about the final proposal that HR appears to be moving towards. As a decision will be made in the very near future, HCTF is requesting that the Academic Council, through Chair Cheung, convey our concerns to Cheryl Lloyd, Vice President, Systemwide Human Resources and Chief Human Resources Officer and to Maynard Jenkins, Senior Executive Director, Benefits Programs & Strategy, Systemwide Human Resources. Most importantly our concerns, which are summarized in the 5 bullet points below, should be copied to the members of the EASC who will play a significant advisory role in the decision-making. The Academic Senate is represented on the EASC by Rick Kronick (UCSD) Distinguished Professor, who is also a member of HCTF. Other members of the EASC are Rachel Nava, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; Nathan Brostrom, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; David Rubin, Executive Vice President for UC Health; and Jenny Kao, Vice President & Chief of Staff to the UC President.

HCTF recommends:

1. We strongly urge that the University contribution to health insurance increase by at least the amount of the average premium increase. If the average premium increase is 10.5%, even a 10.5% increase in the University contribution will leave employees with a 10.5% increase in the employee share of the premium. An 8.5% increase in the University contribution would cause the employee paid premium contributions to increase by more than 20%.

2. We support the motivation to keep UC Care from entering a ‘death spiral’, but we oppose changes that would significantly reduce the differential in employee premium contributions for UC Care compared to Blue and Gold. We understand that HR is considering making the difference between UC Care and Blue and Gold in employee premiums much smaller in 2026 than it was in 2025. We think this is a mistake because we do not think that UC should be providing stronger financial incentives than in the status quo for employees to choose a more expensive method of delivering medical care.

3. Even more strongly, we oppose any changes that would significantly reduce the differential between what employees pay for Kaiser and what they pay for Blue and Gold, both of which are HMOs. Approximately 42% of employees choose Kaiser. In one scenario, the University contribution to Kaiser would be approximately 25% less than the University contribution for Blue and Gold in 2026, causing the difference in employee premium contributions between Kaiser and Blue and Gold to narrow by about $40 (for individual coverage) to about $120/month (for full family coverage) in pay band 1 relative to 2025. We think it would be a bad approach to increase the employee premium contribution for Kaiser by more than the corresponding increase for Blue and Gold. Such a change would unfairly disadvantage the 42% of employees who choose Kaiser, and, over time, cause more employees to choose Blue and Gold, which will increase health benefit costs for the University.

4. We understand that HR is planning a comprehensive review of how the University sets contribution levels across pay bands for 2027, and we support the desirability of this review. We understand also that HR is considering changes for 2026 that could result in larger increases in employee contributions in pay bands 1 (under $70,001) and 2 ($71,001-$140,000), and smaller increases in pay bands 3 and 4. We think it is premature to implement any substantial changes in 2026, and encourage waiting until the results of the more comprehensive review is conducted for 2027. We are particularly concerned about potential changes that would result in substantial increases in the premium contributions that employees in pay bands 1 and 2 would be required to pay for Kaiser, which is the largest enrollment plan in those pay bands.

5. We strongly urge UC Health to provide a larger 'friends and family' discount for UC employees and their families. 2026 will be an extremely challenging year for everyone at UC, and we know that the challenges extend to the UC Medical Centers. However, we think that the Medical Centers can and should contribute to the solution to the problem created by health care premiums that are increasing much faster than the rest of the University budget and much faster than employee wages. We also strongly encourage UC Health to provide credible data on the size of the 'friends and family' discount.

Thank you for helping to advance our shared goals in this important area.

Sincerely,

Vickie Mays, Chair HCTF

Cc: Steve Cheung, Academic Council Chair, Ahmet Palazoglu, Academic Council Vice Chair, Monica Lin, Systemwide Academic Senate Executive Director

===

Source: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/council-vphr-rates-for-health-and-welfare-benefits.pdf.

Straws in the Wind - Part 56

From Stat: Long before she became president of the University of Minnesota, Rebecca Cunningham trained in emergency medicine. She draws on that experience often these days...

You proposed a $5.1 billion budget for the university, which the board approved. The budget allows for merit raises, but it also raises tuition and calls for a 7% cut to academic programs. How did you settle on that budget?

To move ahead strategically, you need to double down on your strengths and invest, but this is also a time of resource constraints with federal funding reductions. We [also] have a flat state budget this year, and a flat budget is a reduction of 3%, essentially, with inflation. We made the decision this year, like many universities did, to take a hard look at areas where we could indeed trim some, and we did that specifically with the focus of being able to then invest in our people, in our workforce, and invest in our operations and buildings moving forward, and our infrastructure.

The Trump administration has terminated grants for studying vaccine hesitancy, health disparities, and other topics. How are you supporting affected researchers?

We have about 100 grants that have been stopped, and about $40-plus million of funding. The difficulty with that really is the suddenness at which it happens and the inability to plan. We’re trying to address that issue specifically in using some university funds that are modest, with some donor support. Instead of having a [sudden] stoppage of their labs and firing of all their people, [we] try to give [faculty] some funds for a respectful ramp down over more months so that we can fully try to gain and utilize at least some portion of the data and not lose the workforce of postdocs, grad students, and junior faculty that are on those grants, so that we can help them transition to areas then that may have more funding.

Despite those efforts, have there been layoffs?

Absolutely. You can’t lose $40 million in grants without layoffs and terminations. And just this past week, we had SNAP-Ed [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education] terminated across the country. University of Minnesota Extension administered that program in all 87 counties, helping to provide education around food assistance to predominantly rural Minnesotans. That program was ended, and we laid off 80 people. So that is not one that we are able to continue, and that will be felt in the communities directly...

Full story at https://www.statnews.com/2025/07/21/university-minnesota-president-rebecca-cunningham-q-and-a/.

From the NY Times: The Trump administration has frozen $108 million in federal funds for Duke University’s medical school and health care system, according to two administration officials, after the government accused the university of “systemic racial discrimination.” Duke University is the latest high-profile school, from Columbia University to Harvard, that the Trump administration has targeted and stripped of a large amount of federal funding, based on vague accusations that the university abets antisemitism or supports diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The move comes amid a wider pressure campaign from the Trump administration to shift the ideological tilt of American higher education.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, and Linda McMahon, the education secretary, sent a letter to Duke administrators on Monday expressing concerns about “racial preferences in hiring, student admissions, governance, patient care, and other operations” in the university’s health care system.

In the letter, the officials accused Duke of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race and nationality in programs receiving federal funding. Mr. Kennedy and Ms. McMahon called on Duke Health, the university’s health care system, to review all policies “for the illegal use of race preferences” and to create a “Merit and Civil Rights Committee” that would work with the federal government. The $108 million cut could be permanent, if the government concludes the university violated the Civil Rights Act...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/29/us/politics/trump-duke-university-frozen-funding-discrimination.html.

New Case

From the LA Times: The Department of Justice said Tuesday that UCLA violated the civil rights of Jewish and Israeli students who reported harassment and intimidation during a spring 2024 pro-Palestinian campus encampment, heightening the political tensions between the University of California and the Trump administration. In a letter addressed to UC President Michael V. Drake, DOJ officials said, “Jewish and Israeli students at UCLA were subjected to severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment that created a hostile environment by members of the encampment.”

The letter faulted UCLA for not taking down the encampment until after it was attacked by a pro-Israel group. In addition, the department found UCLA was “inadequate” in its response to complaints from Jewish and Israeli students last spring, violating the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. A DOJ statement that said UCLA acted with “deliberate indifference” toward Jewish students and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said the Trump administration will make UCLA pay a “heavy price.” ...

Full story at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-29/ucla-settles-lawsuit-jewish-students.

News release from DOJ at:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-finds-university-california-los-angeles-violation-federal-civil-rights.

The full letter from DOJ to UC President Drake is at:

https://ia600402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/UCLA%20DOJ%20Letter%20to%20UCLA%20on%20Notice%20of%20Findings%207-29-2025.pdf.

Will Harvard Continue to Lead the Charge? - Part 39

Yesterday, we noted that the Harvard Crimson was indicating a deal between the feds and Harvard. The NY Times indicates it knows the outline of a deal: Harvard University has signaled a willingness to meet the Trump administration’s demand to spend as much as $500 million to end its dispute with the White House as talks between the two sides intensify, four people familiar with the negotiations said. According to one of the people, Harvard is reluctant to directly pay the federal government, but negotiators are still discussing the exact financial terms.

The sum sought by the government, which recently accused Harvard of civil rights violations, is more than twice as much as the $200 million fine that Columbia University said it would pay when it settled antisemitism claims with the White House last week. Neither Harvard nor the government has publicly detailed potential terms for a settlement and what allegations the money would be intended to resolve.

President Trump has privately demanded that Harvard pay far more than Columbia. The people who described the talks and the dynamics surrounding them spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential negotiations. Although the two sides have made progress toward a deal, Harvard is also skeptical of Columbia’s agreement to allow an outside monitor to oversee its sweeping arrangement with the government. Harvard officials have signaled that such a requirement for their own settlement could be a redline as a potential infringement on the university’s academic freedom.

University officials, though, concluded months ago that even if they prevailed in their court fight against the government, a deal could help Harvard to avoid more troubles over the course of Mr. Trump’s term...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/28/us/politics/trump-harvard-payment.html.

Watch the Regents Meeting of July 17, 2025

We are again playing catch-up with the Regents, although we have previously covered July 15 and 16. On the third day of the meetings - July 17 - the agenda began with public comments. Topics covered were tuition, substandard construction on a project at UC-Santa Cruz, layoffs in a student retention program, layoffs at Santa Barbara, layoffs of instructors, loss of federal funding for climate change research and another topics, loss of funding from NSF, opposition to the ban on non-transparent masks at Regents meetings, problems of disabled students, anti-Israel, financial aid, unfair work standards in a Teamsters unit, understaffing in health care, federal science cuts, layoffs at San Diego, leaves of absence for undergraduate students with medical issues, and problems of student-parents.

After public comments, the undergraduate student rep complained about the ban on boycotts by student governments. The graduate student rep complained about rent and dorm conditions at Santa Cruz and a police action. There was then a program about the UC Grand Slam for graduate students. In that program, grad students make a 3-minute presentation on their research projects suitable for a lay audience. Four students from different research areas made presentations in the bio/medical/health care area.

The Regents went into closed session and when the open session resumed, the new chancellor of UC-Santa Barbara - Dennis Assanis - was appointed. The various committees that had met during the prior two days reported and their reports and recommendations were adopted. It was noted that 2025 was the 50th anniversary of CUCSA (for non-union staff) and also the 50th anniversary of the appointment of a student Regents.

There was then a discussion item on replacing the Regents' existing "cohort" tuition plan when it expires with a new program that would begin in 2027-28. Note that although the Regents could just extend the existing plan, a modification was presented which would raise the annual cap on increases, reduce the formula percentage of recycled tuition revenue going to financial aid, and bump up the inflation adjustment by a fixed amount. These changes would raise revenue from tuition and divert some of the increase to things like seismic upgrades.

As might be expected, there was push-back against the proposal, but since at this point the matter was just a discussion item, the push-back was general and alternatives were not presented. Yours truly found the discussion to be disjointed. What was needed, but not presented, was a range of concrete examples of what a student with a particular income, etc., would pay under the old plan and under the new plan under varying assumptions about inflation and various adjustments of the basic formula. 

Regent chair Reilly said the tuition issue would be taken up as an action item at a later meeting, probably in November. Several Regents noted that the political and funding situation in Washington, DC was volatile. Whether there will be more clarity on that front in November is uncertain.

==

As blog readers will know, we retain recordings of Regents meetings indefinitely since the Regents have no policy on duration of retention for their (unlisted) YouTube recordings.

The opening session of the July 17 meeting is at: https://ia601901.us.archive.org/8/items/7-board-8-30-am/7-Board%208_30%20AM.mp4.

The second session of the meeting is at: https://ia801901.us.archive.org/8/items/7-board-8-30-am/8-Board%2011_30%20AM.mp4.

The general website for the recordings is: https://archive.org/details/7-board-8-30-am.

Straws in the Wind - Part 55

From the Chicago Tribune: The U.S. Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security have requested information on admissions practices and international students at the University of Chicago. The university disclosed the inquiries in bond issuance documents dated July 11. Bloomberg first reported on the documents Friday... A spokesperson for U. of C. declined to comment. The documents provided no additional details on the timeline or subject of potential investigations. The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment...

International students make up 18% of undergraduates at U. of C., and 32% of the total student body, according to the bond documents... U. of C. is also one of 45 universities under investigation by the Education Department for alleged Title VI violations for a program aimed at increasing the diversity of doctorate students. The university relied on $543 million in federal grant funding in 2024, which accounted for 18% of its revenue, according to the bond documents. Several of the school’s grants have been pulled by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other organizations, the documents said.

Northwestern University has also been targeted by the Trump administration. More than $790 million in federal research funding has been paused while it faces multiple federal probes for alleged civil rights violations against Jewish students. President Michael Schill is slated to testify for the second time before Congress in August.

Full story at https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/07/18/university-of-chicago-federal-inquiry/.

Frankel Case Settles for Well Over $6 Million

News Release: University of California announces settlement in litigation related to antisemitism on campus, makes significant contributions to organizations committed to fighting antisemitism

UC Office of the President, July 29, 2025

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/university-california-announces-settlement-litigation-related-antisemitism-campus-makes or

https://ia800402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/UCLA%20UC%20news%20release%20on%20Frankel%20settlement%207-29-2025.pdf

The University of California announced today (Tuesday, July 29) a settlement in Frankel v. Regents of the University of California, resolving claims against UC related to UCLA’s initial response to protest activity in 2024.

“We are pleased with the terms of today’s settlement. The injunction and other terms UCLA has agreed to demonstrate real progress in the fight against antisemitism,” the parties said in a joint statement.

This agreement builds on substantive action taken by the University of California and UCLA to promote safety and combat antisemitism on campus. As part of the settlement, UCLA will continue to implement policies that make its campus safer for Jewish students, faculty, and staff. Additionally, the University will contribute $2.33 million to eight organizations that combat antisemitism and support the UCLA Jewish community, including Hillel at UCLA, the Academic Engagement Network, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Jewish Federation Los Angeles’s Campus Impact Network, among others.

Consistent with UCLA and the University of California’s commitment to fighting antisemitism, $320,000 will also be distributed to UCLA’s Initiative to Combat Antisemitism — an effort announced in March by UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk to mobilize resources and leaders across the University to combat antisemitism wherever it arises. Today’s settlement follows systemwide reforms and programs previously instituted by the University of California to combat antisemitism.

“Antisemitism, harassment, and other forms of intimidation are antithetical to our values and have no place at the University of California. We have been clear about where we have fallen short, and we are committed to doing better moving forward. Today’s settlement reflects a critically important goal that we share with the plaintiffs: to foster a safe, secure and inclusive environment for all members of our community and ensure that there is no room for antisemitism anywhere on campus,” said University of California Board of Regents Chair Janet Reilly. “As we build upon our systemwide efforts to further this goal, we remain steadfastly committed to cultivating an environment where all are afforded the opportunity to live, learn and teach safely and peacefully, no matter who they are, where they come from, or how they pray.”

=====

FRANKEL SETTLEMENT FACT SHEET

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/2025-07/frankel-settlement-fact-sheet.pdf or

https://ia600402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/UCLA%20Frankel-settlement-fact-sheet%207-29-2025.pdf

--

OVERVIEW

The University of California abhors antisemitism and is diligently working to address and counter it in all its forms across the UC system. Antisemitism has been on the rise across the globe, including on college campuses, and UC is no exception. The University has taken additional steps to ensure that everyone feels safe on campus. UC leaders recognize there is more work to be done and are committed to using what they have learned to drive real, lasting improvements.

As part of resolving litigation related to antisemitism on campus, UCLA will continue to implement policies that make its campuses safer for Jewish students, faculty, and staff, as well as contribute a total of $2.33 million to eight organizations that combat antisemitism in the University of California community. This reflects the University’s deep commitment to fostering a safe, secure, and inclusive environment for all members of our community and ensuring that there is no room for antisemitism anywhere on UC’s campuses.

--

OUR STEPS TO SUPPORT THE JEWISH COMMUNITY

The University of California will donate a total of $2.65 million to combating antisemitism and cultivating a safe environment for all:

● $320,000 to UCLA’s Initiative to Combat Antisemitism — an effort announced in March by UCLA

Chancellor Julio Frenk to mobilize resources and leaders across the University to combat antisemitism wherever it arises.

● Additionally, the University will contribute $2.33 million to eight organizations that combat antisemitism and support the UCLA Jewish community:

○ Hillel at UCLA

○ Academic Engagement Network

○ Anti-Defamation League

○ Jewish Federation Los Angeles – Campus Impact Network

○ Chabad of UCLA

○ The Film Collaborative, Inc.

○ Jewish Graduate Organization

○ Orthodox Union – Jewish Learning Initiative on Campus.

--

PAST UC ACTIONS TO COMBAT ANTISEMITISM

The University of California has taken several important and proactive steps to combat antisemitism, including:

● Communicated campus prohibitions against encampments, unauthorized structures, restrictions on free movement, identity concealment, and refusals to reveal one’s identity when asked to do so by University personnel.

● Conducted trainings to inform the whole UC community about policies and procedures related to campus safety and expressive activities.

● Opposed calls for boycotts against and divestment from Israel.

● Outgoing UC President Michael Drake reiterated in a letter to chancellors that all UC entities are banned from boycotting any country, including Israel.

● Reaffirmed system policies, including the Regents Policy 4403: Statement of Principles Against Intolerance from March 2016, which states, “Anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination have no place in the University. The Regents call on University leaders actively to challenge antiSemitism and other forms of discrimination when and wherever they emerge within the University community.”

● Published a single, systemwide Anti-Discrimination Policy managed by the new Systemwide Office of Civil Rights (SOCR) that applies to all staff, faculty, students, and third parties.

● Participated in Hillel International’s Campus Climate Initiative to foster a positive, inclusive, and welcoming campus climate for all students throughout the UC system.

● Teams from the Systemwide Office of Civil Rights and two campuses attended the Brandeis University Summer Institute on Antisemitism in Higher Education, which aims to raise awareness and provide senior administrators in academic and student affairs with a toolbox of practices and actions to effectively confront antisemitism on their campuses.

=====

Note: The payments to the plaintiffs, their lawyers, and various organizations total $6,450.000. The terms of the settlement can be found at:

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/2025-07/frankel-settlement-agreement-fully-executed-w-ex-a.pdf or

https://ia600402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/UCLA%20Frankel%20settlement%207-28-2025.pdf.

Warm Welcome or Cold Shoulder?

The local newspaper's welcome for Santa Barbara's new chancellor is a bit ambiguous. From the Santa Barbara Independent: Following a year-long, nationwide search, UC Santa Barbara has a new chancellor. On Thursday, Dr. Dennis Assanis, former president of the University of Delaware (UD), was named as Chancellor Henry Yang’s replacement, marking the official end of Yang’s 31-year tenure. To take on the role, however, Assanis is taking a pay cut. He also ended his tenure at the University of Delaware early — a year before his contract was set to expire. UD tax returns from 2023 reported his salary to be a little more than $1.5 million (making him the third-highest-paid president of a public university), so his $880,000 salary at UCSB will be a considerable drop in compensation. However, it is still a $60,000 increase from Yang’s pay.  

The former UD president also reportedly resigned from his position in May amid scrutiny from faculty about how he handled the university’s finances coming out of COVID, during which the university faced a $250 million budget shortfall. According to multiple sources — such as Spotlight Delaware and The Review, UD’s campus newspaper — Assanis faced criticism around the university’s spending, which seemed to prioritize administration and construction over academics...

Full story at https://www.independent.com/2025/07/21/uc-santa-barbaras-new-chancellor-taking-620k-pay-cut/.

Straws in the Wind - Part 54

From Chemistry World: Employees at the embattled US National Science Foundation (NSF), which supports fundamental research, were all set to follow the lead of workers at two other science agencies and publish a statement warning about concerning developments under the Trump administration. But that effort has been indefinitely delayed... A leaked version of the NSF document echoes similar concerns to those aired by workers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In early June, several hundred current and former NIH employees signed the Bethesda Declaration, which criticized the leadership of director Jay Bhattacharya, who took the agency’s helm in April... A draft of the NIH document, which reportedly was endorsed by the NIH Fellows United union, apparently expressed several concerns including that the Trump administration halted high-quality, peer reviewed grants and contracts at the agency, dismissed crucial NIH staff, terminated key international research collaborations, and took action to enact a blanket 15% cap on indirect costs that the NIH provides to grantees to cover essential facilities and administrative expenses, which courts have temporarily paused amid an agency appeal...

Then, just a few weeks later, current and former EPA employees published their own Declaration of Dissent, which highlighted problems with the leadership of Trump-appointed administrator, Lee Zeldin... In response, Zeldin declared ‘zero tolerance’ for this criticism and reportedly placed 139 of the agency’s workers who signed the document on administrative leave, pending an investigation. Earlier this month, a union representing more than 8000 EPA workers across the US called on Zeldin to reinstate those employees.

Full story https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/national-science-foundation-employees-dissent-declaration-on-indefinite-hold/4021854.article.

===

From the Deseret News: The Trump administration’s proposal to significantly cut medical research funding at American colleges could cost the University of Utah $110 million annually — while severely impacting the school’s ability to fulfill its research endeavors. That was the sobering report shared... by University of Utah Vice President for Research Erin Rothwell with the Utah Board of Higher Education. “There will be some hits to the research enterprise,” she said.

Earlier this year, the National Institutes of Health announced a 15% cap on the amount grant recipients such as the University of Utah could request for “indirect” costs — those funds that grant recipients are allowed to use on facility and administrative expenses. The Trump administration has dismissed these expenses as “overhead.”

...As Rothwell reported..., it is a historically seismic moment for the University of Utah’s vast research endeavors. “In terms of grant cancellations, we’ve had 77 grant cancellations,” she said. Many of those cancellations were for grants that had already expended most of their funding...

Full story at https://www.deseret.com/utah/2025/07/18/utah-research-grant-cuts/.

Will Harvard Continue to Lead the Charge? - Part 38

From the Harvard Crimson: The White House is pushing Harvard for a major financial settlement in negotiations to restore more than $2 billion in frozen funds, according to a person familiar with the talks — and demanding that Harvard cough up even more than Columbia University did earlier this week. United States President Donald Trump is personally pressing officials involved in the negotiations to ensure Harvard pays more than Columbia’s $220 million deal, the person said, adding that Trump believes exceeding that sum would set an example... The push comes just days after Columbia finalized a deal with the Trump administration, ending a monthslong tug-of-war that began when the Ivy League school accepted a series of demands in March...

It is not yet clear which other demands the Trump administration will press Harvard to accept, though several others are under consideration, the person said. Harvard and the Trump administration have exchanged several offers over the last few weeks, according to another person familiar with the matter — though the terms are hardly finalized. It is also unclear whether any payment would go solely to the White House or also be used to resolve Harvard’s ongoing Title VI case. In late June, the administration issued a formal finding that Harvard was in violation of Title VI because of its slow-walked response to campus antisemitism...

Full story at https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/7/27/harvard-trump-settlement-columbia/.

===

On either a lighter or heavier note, depending on how you look at it, there is this from the NY Times:

Tom Lehrer, the Harvard-trained mathematician whose wickedly iconoclastic songs made him a favorite satirist in the 1950s and ’60s on college campuses and in all the Greenwich Villages of the country, died on Saturday at his home in Cambridge, Mass. He was 97...

Full obituary at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/27/arts/music/tom-lehrer-dead.html.

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J04FRsesBQ.

Look for more

As college sports become more commercial and professional, there will be more lawsuits like the one below at UCLA:

From the Bruin: Former Appalachian State wide receiver and UCLA transfer Kaedin Robinson has filed a lawsuit against the NCAA in the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California in an attempt to play the 2025-2026 season in Westwood. The NCAA denied Robinson’s waiver to play for UCLA in March because he did not meet the criteria for an extension of his collegiate eligibility, having already exhausted it all, according to the NCAA. In his 19-page complaint filed last Tuesday the receiver claimed that the NCAA penalized him for playing with the ASA Brooklyn Avengers, a junior college in New York, as well as facing “significant” disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Robinson further alleged that the NCAA’s decision severely limits his opportunities, and that the organization relied on an “unlawful” five-year eligibility rule that violated antitrust laws...

Full story at https://dailybruin.com/2025/07/22/ucla-transfer-kaedin-robinson-files-lawsuit-against-ncaa-to-play-2025-2026-season.

Straws in the Wind - Part 53

From the Duke Chronicle: Duke University School of Medicine (SOM) plans to implement new faculty productivity guidelines that would tie tenured professors’ salaries to external research funding...

Set to go in effect in 2026, the proposed policy would apply to the school’s basic science units, which include departments ranging from biochemistry to neurobiology and various centers and institutes such as the Duke Cancer Institute and the Duke Human Vaccine Institute. These units rely heavily on grants from the National Institutes of Health, which have been increasingly difficult to come by due to slowdowns in grant review processes, an uptick in terminations and a lack of new funding opportunities since President Donald Trump assumed office. Under the guidelines, each department must establish a minimum expectation for external grant funding. Tenured faculty members who do not meet the threshold — measured as a three-year average — would be given the option to either enter a 12-month “Safe Harbor” period, after which further inability to meet productivity standards will result in salary reductions, or consider career transition alternatives.

SOM administration initially proposed the guidelines in late May, drawing backlash that they had sidestepped shared governance processes. The May proposal stated that faculty members who failed to secure the minimum externally funded effort would be subject to a 10% salary “decrement” every six months to a minimum base of $50,000 a year — an amount lower than the salary of most postdoctoral researchers. A revised version of the proposal, dated June 18, softens the language. It allows final decisions to be made on salary adjustment levels, frequency of adjustments and minimum base salary to be finalized after SOM leadership consults with basic science chairs and the Basic Science Faculty Steering Committee (BSFSC). The departmental minimum funding expectations have not been finalized...

Full story at https://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2025/07/duke-university-school-of-medicine-implements-faculty-productivity-guidelines-external-grant-funding-requirements-salary-reductions.

Will Harvard Continue to Lead the Charge? - Part 37

From the Harvard Crimson: Harvard College will close its offices for minority students, LGBTQ students, and women and fold their staff and programs into a new center within the Office of Culture and Community, according to a Wednesday message from College Dean David J. Deming. In place of the three centers, the College will establish the “Harvard Foundation” within the recently-formed OCC, under the College’s Dean of Students Office. Current staff from the Harvard College Women’s Center, Office for BGLTQ Student Life, and Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations will be reassigned to the Foundation. 

Roughly 50 employees worked at the three offices, including more than 15 student interns, according to archived versions of their websites... The College quietly removed the websites for the three centers two weeks ago, replacing them with a work-in-progress page containing information about the OCC...

Full story at https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/7/24/new-harvard-foundation/.

Klein v. Bernardo and Regents - Part 2

As blog readers will know, the Klein vs. Bernardo and the Regents trial has been underway in Santa Monica after five years. If you don't recall, or if you missed our explanation of the strange image, check out:

https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/07/klein-v-bernardo-and-regents.html.

In any case, a reminder that the Daily Bruin has been carrying daily summaries of the trial:

https://dailybruin.com/category/breaking/klein-trial-coverage. 

It's unclear from the summaries whether all testimony has now been heard.

Bad Air Monitoring

From the Santa Monica Mirror: A UCLA-led team completed the installation of 20 air quality monitoring stations across western Los Angeles County this month, providing real-time data to residents as reconstruction efforts continue following the January Palisades fire. The Community Action Project (CAP) Los Angeles Air, or CAP AIR, spans from Topanga State Park through Pacific Palisades, Brentwood, and Santa Monica, addressing pollution risks from the blaze that killed at least 29 people and damaged over 18,000 structures, county officials reported.

Dr. Yifang Zhu, a UCLA Fielding School of Public Health expert leading the project, emphasized the urgency: “The fires released a complex mix of particulate matter and volatile organic compounds from burned structures, vehicles, and household products, and these emissions can persist for weeks to months.” She added, “Cleanup activities—debris removal and demolition—and construction may further stir up dust and other contaminants, prolonging exposure risks for returning residents and construction workers, so our goal here is to give residents access to real-time, local air quality data, help identify pollution hotspots, and inform public health responses.” ...

Full story at https://smmirror.com/2025/07/ucla-team-installs-air-quality-network-in-west-la/.

Straws in the Wind - Part 52

From the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch: Washington University has quietly removed many references to the university’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion from its websites amid rising federal scrutiny of higher education. A statement on WashU Libraries’ commitment to “inclusion, diversity, equity, and access” was taken down around July 7. “Our goal is to incorporate IDEA and antiracism as an integral part of our practices, policies and culture,” the now-purged statement read, in part.

Websites of schools and departments — including WashU Math, McKelvey School of Engineering, WashU Law and Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts — no longer include statements on their commitments to fostering inclusivity and promoting equitable access. A few other pages that included statistics on WashU’s efforts to improve student and employee diversity have also been removed. The webpages are just a few examples of what’s been wiped from WashU’s digital footprint amid a broad push by President Donald Trump’s administration to eliminate DEI policies and programs across the United States...

Full story at https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/article_1a442ba3-bb3c-4b99-b400-73be8cee76e3.html.

You might be entitled to money - and lose it

The university email system includes spam filters. In the case of yours truly's emails, the system often blocks legitimate emails that it decides are spam. Unless you look at a listing of what is blocked, however, and ask to release messages that were blocked but which you want to see, you will not see them.

Blog readers may recall the Accellion data breach that affected UC and other institutions. Anyone who was a UC connected individual was likely to have had data stolen. UC provided free credit monitoring to affected individuals, initially for a limited period and then indefinitely. (You should be getting regular emails from Experian due to that monitoring.)

Recently, a claims form was sent to all affected individuals at UC. Yours truly's form arrived yesterday but was blocked by the spam filter. He released the form today. Towards the top there was an ID number for his "account" plus a password. (They are blacked out on the image shown.) 

Essentially, if you do not use your ID and password to fill out the online form (following directions in the email), you will get nothing from the settlement. If you can document specific losses - which I am willing to guess 99% of affected persons can't - you can file a specific claim. But you may get something even if you just fill out the form. 

If you got no email - perhaps because it was blocked and you didn't know about it - you can try using the contact information below:

Website: www.Regents-AccellionDataBreachSettlement.com

 

Email: Regents-AccellionDataBreachSettlement@cptgroup.com

 

Call Toll-Free: 1-888-317-2945

Resistors

From the Chronicle of Higher Education: The Trump administration’s move to slash science funding has run into a major roadblock: opposition from a key U.S. Senate committee. The Senate Committee on Appropriations voted 19-10... to keep funding for the National Science Foundation and other federal science agencies nearly intact for the 2026 fiscal year. While the budget is still several steps from becoming law, research advocates said they were heartened by lawmakers’ willingness to break with Trump, who has proposed cutting the NSF’s budget by more than half.

The legislation earmarks $9 billion for the NSF, whereas the “skinny” budget proposal Trump put forth in May would have decreased the agency’s coffers to $3.7 billion. The White House’s budget request detailed cuts to “climate; clean energy; woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences; and programs in low priority areas of science,” and noted that the NSF “has fueled research with dubious public value, like speculative impacts from extreme climate scenarios and niche social studies.” ...

By preserving the NSF’s funding, the Senate bill supports “research in critical scientific and technological fields that are necessary to ensure the United States remains competitive with China,” Sen. Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and chair of the committee, said in a news release...

Full story at https://www.chronicle.com/article/trump-proposed-slashing-the-national-science-foundations-budget-a-key-senate-committee-just-refused.

Straws in the Wind - Part 51

From The Oregonian: Oregon State University plans to end two diversity, equity and inclusion programs this fall. But university representatives have declined to elaborate on the decisions and said the spirit of the programs — which have been housed in the university’s human resources department — will carry on in other forms.

The Search Advocate Program began in 2008 and trained faculty, staff and students to help hiring committees limit bias and promote inclusion in hiring searches. University spokesperson Rob Odom said the university will now expect all search committee members to “take an active role in mitigating bias in recruitment and hiring.” The Social Justice Education Initiative started in 2016 and provided professional development to faculty and staff around social justice and equity. Odom said over time the university’s “efforts to build employee awareness and skill in these areas have significantly expanded.” He noted that other programs at the university promote similar educational opportunities.

Misty Edgecomb, a spokesperson for the university, declined to comment in an email on whether any layoffs would occur as a result of the end of the programs or whether pressure from the federal government played a role in Oregon State’s decisions...

Full story at https://www.oregonlive.com/education/2025/07/oregon-university-to-end-2-dei-programs-this-fall.html.

Watch the Regents Afternoon Meeting of July 16, 2025

As usual, we are playing catch-up with the Regents. The afternoon Regents meetings of July 16th began with the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee. After approval of various capital projects and planning proposals, the state budget for UC was reviewed. It was noted that the initial proposed 8% cut was reduced to 3% and then ultimately a flat budget with some deferrals. As blog readers will know, we often point to the idea of deferrals as an inherent problem since today's legislature cannot obligate future legislatures. Deferrals are basically loose promises. Some discussion occurred regarding deferrals and the difficulty they pose for planning since loose promises may not be kept.

National Labs approved a budgetary division of the management fee paid to UC for its role in what amounts to the remains of the Manhattan Project. A total of $30 million was allocated. Compliance and Audit conducted a brief routine meeting regarding planning for 2025-26, combined with some discussion of cyber risks to UC.

At Academic and Student Affairs, there was a proposal for more freedom of the UC president to approve professional degree tuition increases of up to 3% for state residents and 5% for out-of-state students. Regent Park asked for clarification concerning how often such increases could be proposed. She said she would be concerned about any nominal increases given concerns about student debt. Regents Hernandez and Brooks (the incoming student Regent) also raised opposition. In the end, the proposal was approved with 3 negative votes.

There followed a discussion of the job market for UC graduates and major California employers to which they went. UC was in fact the employer taking the most graduates but the discussion didn't go into that finding. There was a focus on Apple and the placements there. A website was demonstrated which could summarize such data. UCLA chancellor Frenk spoke in favor of engagement with alumni concerning career advancement. Regent Brooks called for more sharing of such data with students and even students in K-12. 

Regent Lieb then introduced the issue of "incident" reporting - essentially student complaints about alleged malpractice by instructors. He expressed concerns about the long durations involved in processing such complaints. Provost Newman spoke about increased information on procedures for complaints in student orientations. But Lieb said students were able to find the procedures; the problem was excessive delay. It was said that a new 30-day limit had been put on the initial stage. Regent Sures asked how long it takes on average from filing a complaint to resolution. There did not appear to be data but it was said that most cases are done within 6 months. There was a promise to provide the data. Sures also asked how many cases of actual discipline of faculty were there recently. There was a promise to provide that information as well at the next meeting.

Provost Newman asserted that when the student disturbances of 2023-24 occurred and President Drake had provided $7 million to the campuses for education on the situation in the Middle East, the money had been appropriately spent, although there were no specifics. Chancellor Frenk referred to the "Dialogue Among Differences" program at UCLA, although, as blog readers will know, it is not clear that this program has produced much. Apparently, however, its name has been changed to "Campus Community Engagement." Frenk suggested that sources of friction were shifting from the Middle East to the impact of changes in federal policy on higher education. In any case, Provost Newman indicated that the codified time-place-manner policies would be part of student orientations in the fall.

Public Engagement and Development had a discussion of UCOP's centralized efforts in providing information on changing federal policies, a website on UC policy on antisemitism, and a PR campaign touting UC research and its impact. The past student Regent, the present one, and the student regent-elect spoke about their role on the board. A presentation was made about the UC Student and Policy Center in Sacramento by its director. She described interaction with the legislature, policymakers, and journalists. Finally, there was an update on Sacramento activity including history of the new UC budget allocation.

The Governance Committee approved some executive appointments and pay, a change in a lecturer title, and increased dollar limits on presidential approval of legal settlements.

===

As always, we preserve recordings of Regents meetings since the Regents have no policy on duration of retention. The links for the afternoon of July 16 are below:

Finance and Capital Strategies: https://ia600501.us.archive.org/6/items/regents-7-16-2025/2-Finance%20and%20Capital%20Strategies%20Committee.mp4.

National Labs & Compliance and Audit: https://ia800501.us.archive.org/6/items/regents-7-16-2025/4-National%20Laboratories%20Committee%2C%20Compliance%20and%20Audit%20Committee.mp4.

Academic and Student Affairs: https://ia800501.us.archive.org/6/items/regents-7-16-2025/3-Academic%20and%20Student%20Affairs%20Committee.mp4. 

Public Engagement and Development: https://ia800501.us.archive.org/6/items/regents-7-16-2025/5-Public%20Engagement%20and%20Development%20Committee.mp4. 

Governance: https://ia600501.us.archive.org/6/items/regents-7-16-2025/6-Governance%20Committee.mp4.

The full website for July 16, which also includes the morning meeting, is at https://archive.org/details/regents-7-16-2025.

Straws in the Wind - Part 50

News from the American Economic Association Committee on the Job Market

Unfortunately, this past job market season was a challenging one for candidates. In the second half of 2024, the total number of job openings listed on JOE [Job Openings for Economists website] was down 4.6 percent relative to the same period in 2023, and down 22.8 percent relative to the same period in 2022. Demand has remained weak in the first half of 2025, with the number of job listings on JOE down 14.4 percent relative to the same period in 2024, and down 39 percent relative to the same period in 2023.

To gain information about the prospects for the coming 2025-26 job market season, the committee will be surveying the chairs of US Economics Departments as to whether they are experiencing a hiring freeze, and if not, how their plans for faculty hiring compare to those in recent years.

The committee’s survey of job candidates on the market during 2024-25 is in the field and will conclude on Tuesday, August 5. If you were on the market this past year, please complete the survey so the committee and future cohorts can better understand your experiences on the market. Advisors and placement directors are asked to encourage their students on the market this past year to complete the survey.

Source: https://www.aeaweb.org/news/member-announcements/2025-jul-15. [Excerpt]

From the LA Times: Citing a budget deficit in excess of $200 million, the University of Southern California’s interim president said Monday that an undisclosed number of layoffs and other belt-tightening measures would be implemented to “deal decisively with our financial challenges.” Beong-Soo Kim wrote in a letter addressed to faculty and staff that USC is “experiencing significant shifts in federal support” for its research and other programs — a product of the Trump administration’s sweeping effort to cut billions of dollars in grants — and also faces “potential decreases in international student enrollment.” At the same time, Kim said, USC’s expenses have “significantly outpaced” its revenue for several years...

Full story at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-15/usc-budget-deficit-layoffs.

Will Harvard Continue to Lead the Charge? - Part 36

From Lawrence Summers, former Harvard president: Based on what I have read and heard so far, the agreement reached between the Federal government and Columbia is an excellent template for agreements with other institutions including Harvard.

First, academic freedom is preserved as the University maintains academic autonomy.

Second, ongoing reform with respect to anti Semitism, maintenance of order, promoting merit-based admissions and hiring, and strengthening the commitment to intellectual excellence is reinforced and a framework for further reform is established.

Third, normality is restored with a return to normal funding patterns, availability of visas for foreign students and removal of legal overhangs.

I, like anyone, could quibble with aspects of the program and much will depend on what both Columbia and the government do in the future. But this may be the best day higher education has had in the last year.

Source: https://x.com/LHSummers/status/1948336830937501817.

Can your NIL still fill the bill?

Old NIL

Once upon a time, famous professional sports stars could cash in on their celebrity status by endorsing various products. They could make money, in short, by selling what is now termed NIL: name, image, and likeness.

But then the US Supreme Court ruled that college athletes could also sell their NIL. The thing about NIL, however, is that in traditional use, you had to be famous for anyone to want to buy it. A budding high school athlete who was being recruited would not be well known and thus would not have valuable NIL.

But the Court's ruling didn't say an athlete's NIL had to be commercially valuable, only that you could sell it. So colleges were able to get alumni donors to set up NIL collectives that would offer money - nominally for NIL - as a recruitment tool. In effect, NIL became a substitute for payment for student athletes. 

The recent House legal settlement was - at least in the interpretation of some - supposed to do away NIL use of that type and substitute revenue sharing. But there is a dispute about what that settlement actually means for such NIL. From Yahoo Sports: 

College sports leaders are in active negotiations with plaintiff attorneys over, perhaps, the most significant piece of the House settlement: whether to permit traditional booster collective deals to athletes. A resolution between the two sides could shape the future enforcement of college athletics’ new revenue-share concept by potentially upending the settlement agreement’s primary goal: to limit or reduce the role of school-affiliated name, image and likeness collectives — booster-backed entities that have paid millions to athletes over the past four years.

The NCAA and power conference officials are negotiating with House plaintiff attorneys Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman, who, in a letter sent last week to the NCAA and conferences, accused them of violating terms of the settlement by denying certain NIL collective contracts they believe should be permissible...

Kessler’s letter targeted a memo sent to NCAA schools... from the College Sports Commission, the new enforcement entity designed to prevent what administrators describe as “phony” booster compensation to athletes. The CSC notified schools on Thursday it was denying dozens of NIL deals for not meeting the definition of a “valid business purpose,” many of those collective contracts with athletes. The memo explained that collectives, or any entity, whose sole existence is to raise money to pay college athletes does not meet the definition...

In the letter, Kessler writes that collectives should not be treated differently as other businesses. The letter requested that the power conferences — the creators and administrators of the CSC — retract the memo and, presumably, reinstate those NIL deals that were denied, or else attorneys will bring the matter to Judge Nathanael Cousins, the appointed magistrate in the settlement who has been appointed to resolve such disputes...

Full story at https://sports.yahoo.com/college-football/article/college-sports-leaders-house-settlement-attorneys-in-talks-over-whether-to-permit-booster-collective-deals-010341870.html.

Straws in the Wind - Part 49 (4th of July Follow Up)

The item sheds light on the reason for the sudden resignation of the UVA president noted in an earlier "straw" post:

From NBC News: [Follow up on July 4th "straw" post] - University of Virginia President James Ryan resigned last month amid a Justice Department investigation into allegations the school failed to wipe out its diversity programs. But a letter the agency sent U.Va., released last week as part of a public records request, reveals another reason the Justice Department targeted the university. In it, the department zeroed in on allegations that a fourth-year Jewish student had endured antisemitic bullying and that U.Va. had mishandled the case...

According to court documents, the housemates had been arguing over parties the Jewish student hosted. One of the roommates, Robert Romer, is alleged to have posted antisemitic memes in a group chat for the residents over several days in mid-October, including a photo of Hasidic Jewish men under the heading “Battle of $18.20.” On Oct. 21, Romer texted the house, “I am going to attempt to free Palestine. Anyone is welcome to join in on the beating,” which the Jewish student interpreted as a threat against him, according to court records. Two days later, the student alleged, Romer tried to force his way into his room.

Early Oct. 31, he later testified in court, the Jewish student entered his room and found Romer holding a gun. He said that he touched it to see that it was real and repeatedly asked whether it was loaded but that Romer wouldn’t say. After he alerted other housemates, he said, some began passing the gun around, while others were “freaking out,” before eventually someone hid it. “I’m very scared at this point,” he said in court. “Especially because someone who had sent messages that I interpreted as antisemitic and I interpreted as pointed towards me, had previously threatened to fight me, didn’t apologize for it, and then was waiting for me in my room holding a gun at midnight — that was something that was incredibly scary.” He reported the incident to the university and law enforcement the next day, then moved out of the house and arranged to study abroad for the spring semester. “I was afraid to stay at U.Va.,” he testified...

According to court documents, the housemates had been arguing over parties the Jewish student hosted. One of the roommates, Robert Romer, is alleged to have posted antisemitic memes in a group chat for the residents over several days in mid-October, including a photo of Hasidic Jewish men under the heading “Battle of $18.20.” On Oct. 21, Romer texted the house, “I am going to attempt to free Palestine. Anyone is welcome to join in on the beating,” which the Jewish student interpreted as a threat against him, according to court records. Two days later, the student alleged, Romer tried to force his way into his room.

Early Oct. 31, he later testified in court, the Jewish student entered his room and found Romer holding a gun. He said that he touched it to see that it was real and repeatedly asked whether it was loaded but that Romer wouldn’t say. After he alerted other housemates, he said, some began passing the gun around, while others were “freaking out,” before eventually someone hid it. “I’m very scared at this point,” he said in court. “Especially because someone who had sent messages that I interpreted as antisemitic and I interpreted as pointed towards me, had previously threatened to fight me, didn’t apologize for it, and then was waiting for me in my room holding a gun at midnight — that was something that was incredibly scary.”

He reported the incident to the university and law enforcement the next day, then moved out of the house and arranged to study abroad for the spring semester. “I was afraid to stay at U.Va.,” he testified. Romer was arrested Nov. 1 and hit with four charges, including brandishing a weapon and hate crime assault, according to his defense attorney, Graven Craig. He was suspended but allowed to return to school in January after he completed a student-run university judicial process, Craig said, while an investigation led by the administration continues...

Full story at https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna217292.

From Forbes: The University of Virginia Faculty Senate has voted that it has no confidence in the school’s Board of Visitors. The resolution of no-confidence in the Board passed 46 to 6, with eight senators abstaining. The vote occurred on Friday, July 11, the same day that UVA President Jim Ryan officially stepped down from his post and released a video of farewell and gratitude to the campus community. Ryan had been a popular and effective president for the university, but he had been under intense pressure from the Trump administration to resign in part because of his leadership on behalf of the university’s diversity, equity and inclusion programs, which the administration had claimed violated federal civil-rights law.

Ryan, who had served since 2018 as the university’s ninth president, said he was resigning “with a very heavy heart.”

...The Senate resolution cited several justifications for the no-confidence vote, including at attempt by the Department of Justice to improperly influence the governance of the University and the power of the university president to control the administrative direction of the institution; violations of the Constitution and Bylaws of the Faculty Senate of the University of Virginia; and the Board’s failure to inform or consult with the Senate over demands made upon the University by representatives of the U.S. Department of Justice...

Full story at https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2025/07/13/university-of-virginia-faculty-vote-no-confidence-in-governing-board/.

The Columbia Deal

As blog readers will know, Columbia's endowment is much smaller than Harvard's and Columbia had other vulnerabilities.

From the NY Times: Columbia University will pay a $200 million fine to settle allegations from the Trump administration that it failed to do enough to stop the harassment of Jewish students, part of a sweeping deal reached on Wednesday to restore the university’s federal research funding, according to a statement from the university. In exchange for the return of hundreds of millions in research grants, Columbia will also pledge to follow laws banning the consideration of race in admissions and hiring, and follow through on other commitments to reduce antisemitism and unrest on campus that it agreed to in March. 

The deal, which settles more than a half-dozen open civil rights investigations into the university, will be overseen by an independent monitor agreed to by both sides who will report to the government on its progress every six months. Columbia will also pay $21 million to settle investigations brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission...

Some of the terms simply codify what was pledged by Columbia in March. Those commitments include the appointment of a senior vice provost to oversee the Middle Eastern studies department and other departments; the maintenance of restrictions on protests; and the appointment of three dozen public safety officers with arrest powers...

The two sides have already agreed on the independent monitor, who will be paid for by Columbia. It will be Bart M. Schwartz, co-founder and chairman of the crisis consulting firm Guidepost Solutions and a former chief of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/23/nyregion/columbia-trump-funding-deal.html.

Various documents leading to, and including, the Columbia deal can be found at:

https://ia600402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/Columbia%20-%20Items%20related%20to%20the%20Columbia%20Deal%20%28July%2015-23%2C%202025%29.pdf.