The Divide

Back when I entered Columbia as an undergraduate in 1960, the powers-that-be there assigned all incoming freshmen the summer requirement of reading British author C.P. Snow's book, "The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution." The book had recently appeared at the time and was to be discussed in orientation. Its basic theme was that there was a division in educated circles between the humanities and the sciences and that was a Bad Thing. I suspect the book was assigned in part to justify the basic core requirements at Columbia for at least minimum exposure to both camps.

The other thing that could have been discussed in orientation, but wasn't, was that higher education in the U.S. had undergone a substantial change since World War II, thanks in large part to the Cold War and the demonstration effect of the Manhattan Project - a massive application of science from UC-Berkeley and other major universities - that produced the atomic bomb. (See our other post today on that.) The War also produced the GI bill which sent many people to college outside the traditional elites who otherwise would not have attended.

The launching of Sputnik by the Soviet Union added to these changes by suggesting that the U.S. was falling behind the Soviets in the sciences and that something had to be done. And some of what was done was to provide yet more resources to universities. Some came from private foundations. Much came from the federal government. What resulted was a major university system highly dependent on federal resources.

If there was a divide between the sciences and other disciplines based on "culture" when Snow wrote, there is now a divide based on funding. Particularly in the case of universities with medical schools, there are many faculty, researchers, and support staff who are supported directly by research grants, often federal. At UCLA, this division is loosely a north campus/south campus phenomenon.

When the federal government cuts off support, a good chunk of UCLA faces an existential dilemma on purely economic grounds. And a good chunk may at least think they don't. But that division is an illusion if it continues for any substantial time. The "overhead" charges on grants - that were cut back even before UCLA was specifically targeted - help keep the lights on, the plumbing and landscaping maintained, and the floors mopped. Somebody has to pay for the library, the computer services, mail delivery, etc. And the dispute with the feds comes as the state is squeezing its contribution to the budget. 

As we have noted in prior posts, by UC's own figures, direct receipts from the federal government are one third of the budget, even including campuses such as Santa Cruz that don't have medical schools. Any faculty member who has served on CAP or on other major Academic Senate committees knows about this dependence on the feds. That's another way of saying that many faculty do NOT know.

Columbia, as blog readers will be aware, ultimately made a deal with the feds involving payments of $221 million and other concessions. Columbia, however, is a private institution that is not part of a larger system. It is ultimately controlled by a private board of trustees. UCLA is part of the UC system. It is a public institution ultimately controlled by the UC Regents. Among the Regents are ex officio elected politicos: the governor, lieutenant governor, speaker of the assembly, and superintendent of education. In theory, the ex officio members could be outvoted by the others. In practice, that won't/can't happen, given UC's dependence on elected state officials for its budget allocation.

It's hard to see the Regents settling with the feds with a Columbia-type deal, given the politics of the "blue" State of California. The governor, for example, is engaged in an ongoing non-campaign for president in 2028 and in direct attacks on President Trump. Even if the Regents were inclined to settle, monetary penalties on the order of Columbia's would have to come from somewhere. Where would that be?

If the decision is to litigate, there is the unpleasant reality that the judicial process can be very slow, even if you have a good case. And to the extent that decisions are appealed, they may end up in the hands of a a conservative U.S. Supreme Court. Even if you ultimately win and reverse the current cuts, what about grant renewals in the future? What about new grants upon which UCLA in its current form depends? 

It's easy to demand - particularly if you are north of the campus divide - that UCLA eschew any negotiations with the feds on principle and march into court. But as the illustration above shows, UCLA is already negotiating. That train has left the station.* In addition, you are assuming, in making such a demand, that the courts will "fix" the problem in the way you might like. That is an iffy assumption.

There is much that is not known at this point. Do the feds even want a deal of any type? Or is their goal to punish California and just keep the dispute going? If they do have actual terms of settlement, what are they? Do they apply just to UCLA or to UC as a system? 

As we noted in a prior post, the chancellor has said there is a contingency plan. But what that plan is has not been revealed. And, indeed, it's not clear whether the plan is having a committee to develop a plan. The chancellor also has been saying that "we are one UCLA." But yours truly still sees divisions that go back to the events of 2023-24. The chancellor will need to get a wide circle of views into his tent. One thing for sure, however, is that a repeat of anything like the events of 2023-24 will not help the situation.

===

*https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-08-05/ucla-negotiate-nih-nsf-doe-grant-cuts.