Federal Student Aid May Be Unavailable - Part 2 (What could possibly go wrong?)

From Inside Higher Ed:

The responsibilities of acting under secretary James Bergeron doubled as the Department of Education announced Wednesday that he will not only oversee the regulatory duties related to higher ed but manage the entire Office of Federal Student Aid.

Even in the wake of major layoffs, FSA remains the largest office in the department. It oversees the Free Application for Federal Student Aid [FAFSA], the allocation of Pell Grants and—at least for now—management of the $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/04/03/fsa-executive-retires-and-acting-under-secretary-takes-over.

The Alternative Way to Read the Blog

Every quarter, we backup the blog as pdf files which provide and alternative way of reading it or printing it out.

Of course, video and audio embedded in the blog will be unavailable using that option. But you can always go to the particular blog posting to obtain the video or audio.

For the first quarter of 2025, the reading/printing option is at:

https://archive.org/details/blog-jan-31-19-2025

With NIL, who gets to Control the Lion's Share: Maybe Not Lyons

From SFGATE: For the first time since 2011, there’s a growing anxiety among Cal fans about the future of their football program that stems directly from what Andrew Luck is doing at Stanford.

Two board members of California Legends Collective — the Golden Bears’ only third-party name, image and likeness collective — have announced that they will no longer personally donate to the organization they oversee until the school meets their singular demand: Put newly hired general manager, and former NFL head coach, Ron Rivera fully in charge of Cal football.

This drastic move comes at a rather interesting time in the program’s history. Over the past four years, the Golden Bears have been better on the gridiron than the Cardinal in almost every conceivable way. The four-year Cal graduates at spring commencement will be the first class since 2006 to experience a total sweep over Stanford in the Big Game. To top it all off, the school brought in Rivera on March 20 as its first football general manager.

But given the emerging circumstances in Palo Alto, the state of the program is still not good enough.

“We all have to acknowledge that we haven’t achieved everything we wanted to achieve,” Kevin Kennedy, president of California Legends Collective, told SFGATE. “So the story is still being written. We’re still working to kind of create the most competitive team possible — and teams possible — and, honestly, have Cal’s athletic success match academic excellence.”

The return of Rivera, a decorated former Cal athlete, could have universally been considered a momentous occasion for the Golden Bears. But in some Cal fans’ minds, it was ruined by their archrivals across the bay. After hiring Luck back in November to be general manager of Cardinal football, Stanford shared that the former quarterback would be above then-head coach Troy Taylor on the organization chart, which ESPN called “an innovative turn in how football operations work.” Luck then flexed that muscle when he fired Taylor after an ESPN report came out revealing investigations into employee complaints about Taylor’s workplace behavior toward women. There’s no ambiguity about Luck’s role and what he’s in charge of over at Stanford. 

However, that innovation didn’t make its way to Berkeley. When Cal announced the Rivera hire four months later, the release noted that the two-time NFL Coach of the Year will report to chancellor Rich Lyons. Head coach Justin Wilcox, meanwhile, will continue to report to athletic director Jim Knowlton. This ruffled more than a few feathers among Cal’s donor community.

“You don't hire Mario Andretti and ask him to sit in the passenger seat, right?” said Kennedy, who’s been with the collective since the NIL era began in 2021. “There’s a reason that you bring someone like that on staff: In order to give him control.” In the days following the announcement, Kennedy was one of two California Legends Collective board members to release statements saying that they would withhold their personal donations until UC Berkeley followed Stanford’s lead. 

Kennedy sent his message to the collective’s donor group, which he then shared with SFGATE. After complimenting Lyons and Rivera for getting this hire done, Kennedy wrote that he wasn’t fond of the lack of clarity surrounding the organizational structure of the football program. While Stanford’s announcement clearly stated that football would be under Luck’s direction and control, Cal’s, per Kennedy, left too many unaddressed concerns. For instance, how can Rivera oversee football if no one actually reports to him?

Source: https://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/cal-donors-standoff-with-athletic-department-20253399.php.

Immigration Update

From an email today:

Dear Bruin Community:

In recent days, a number of international students on F-1 status at universities across the nation have had their visas revoked and Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) status terminated by the federal government. These actions have understandably created a great deal of questions within our Bruin community. As your chancellor, I will always strive to keep you informed on important situations. To that end, here is what we currently know:

During a routine audit of SEVIS records, UCLA officials learned that the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) had terminated the SEVIS status of six current students. SEVP also terminated the status of six former students currently participating in the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program. These numbers are fluid and may change.

The termination notices indicate that all terminations were due to violations of the terms of the individuals’ visa programs. At this time, UCLA is not aware of any federal law enforcement activity on campus related to these terminations.

We recognize that these actions can bring feelings of tremendous uncertainty and anxiety to our community. We want our immigrant and international UCLA students, staff and faculty to know we support your ability to work, learn, teach and thrive here. As UCLA leaders and I wrote in our March 12 letter to our Bruin community: You are not alone. You belong at UCLA, and you are an essential part of our community. In that message, we shared resources and support that are available to you. I encourage students to make use of UCLA’s Dashew Center for International Students and Scholars. For the latest information on federal actions and available resources, please visit UCLA’s federal updates web page and the UC systemwide federal updates web page. Additional resources appear below.

I continue to meet almost daily with UC President Michael Drake and my fellow chancellors in the UC system to prepare for — and respond to — any federal policy changes. I am also in constant contact with senior leaders on campus. We remain committed to supporting our students as we abide by the law. We will continue to keep you updated on pertinent developments with the safety and well-being of our Bruin community remaining our utmost priority.

In challenging times like this, we need to stay informed and stay connected. Let’s work together and remember: We are One UCLA.

Sincerely,

Julio Frenk

Chancellor

Everything seems to be deferred

UC has a problem with the governor's proposal to "defer" the promised increase in its state budget allocation. CalMatters has a piece on the problem of deferred maintenance in public higher ed:

...Lawmakers included UC and Cal State in an early version of Proposition 2, a school bond measure approved last November, but the university systems were eventually left out to limit the amount of bond money voters were asked to approve. At the UC, where total capital needs are expected to grow to $30.7 billion by 2030, system leaders said they were disappointed to be left off the state bond despite 18 months of lobbying the Legislature. 

“Going forward, UC will be exploring other options to address our construction, renewal and deferred maintenance needs,” wrote UC spokesperson Heather Hanson via email...

Full story at https://calmatters.org/education/2025/04/deferred-maintenance-cal-state-uc/.

As we noted in our review of the most recent Regents meetings, UC is hoping to become part of a possible housing bond.* Whether that happens is uncertain. And the degree to which such funding could be used for deferred maintenance on student housing is also unclear. 

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/04/watch-regents-meeting-of-march-20-2025.html.

On the wall or off the wall?

From Inside Higher Ed:

Republican-controlled legislatures in two bordering states, Ohio and Kentucky, have now passed laws requiring post-tenure review policies at public universities and banning diversity, equity and inclusion offices, along with other DEI activities.

Many faculty and some Democratic leaders say the new laws threaten academic freedom and undermine tenure. In Ohio, lawmakers passed the sweeping higher education legislation, which has been in the works for a few years, over protests from faculty and students. The Ohio Student Association, for instance, said the bill would kill higher education in the state. Meanwhile, in Kentucky, Republican lawmakers rushed legislation through the process in order to successfully override their Democratic governor’s veto and put their higher education changes into law.

Ohio and Kentucky join Arkansas, Utah and Wyoming this year as states where Republicans have passed laws targeting DEI and/or promoting alternative “intellectual diversity.” Even if the Trump administration’s ongoing nationwide attacks on DEI founder, these laws lock in restrictions on DEI in these states, preventing institutions from reversing course on diversity program rollbacks. Much of the new laws in Ohio and Kentucky echo the DEI bans that the other states have enacted, but Ohio’s legislation goes further than Kentucky’s, allowing immediate "for cause post-tenure reviews," banning strikes for a large group of faculty and much more...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2025/04/01/ohio-and-kentucky-ban-dei-reduce-tenure-protections.

On Getting a Letter

Where is Harvard on the Princeton-versus-Columbia scale? In a previous post, we noted that Princeton and Columbia are in very different positions in terms of vulnerability to federal government pressure. Princeton doesn't have a medical school; Columbia does. Princeton is basically a relatively small but prestigious undergrad college with a grad program tacked on. Columbia is basically a large university that is top-heavy with graduate and professional programs with a college embedded in it. Harvard is closer to Columbia but is smaller in total enrollment. 

Columbia undergrads are about one-fourth of total enrollment. Harvard undergrads are also around a fourth. Princeton undergrads are three-fourths. If you are wondering about UC, in a sense it is like Princeton, with almost 8 out of 10 students as undergrads. But, of course, it dwarfs all three of them as a system, with something like 300,000 students in total. UC, as a public system, is potentially subject to what could be conflicting political pressures from the state versus the feds should it receive the kind of letter from the feds that was sent to Columbia and Harvard. As we have noted in earlier posts, in total, about a third of UC's operating budget comes from the feds in the form of research grants, hospital revenues, management fees, etc.

Princeton's endowment is around 11 times the size of its annual operating budget. Harvard's is around 8 times. Columbia's is over twice its operating budget. UC systemwide endowment is a bit over half of it operating budget, but that leaves out campus endowments. Still, even with campus endowments, you couldn't operate UC for a year based on endowment money alone. And as we have noted, endowments are made up of funds that are often earmarked for particular purposes.

Princeton is best equipped to say "no" to the feds (and seems to be doing it), Harvard less so - but we will see, Columbia - we have already seen. As for UC, yours truly suspects that the folks at UC's headquarters in Oakland, and in Murphy Hall at UCLA, are hoping we don't get a letter or letters such as the ones received by the Ivy League schools and have to find out what the Regents would do.

The Harvard Letter from the Feds

 

Source: https://x.com/sfmcguire79/status/1908108219798426070. Also at:

https://ia800402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/Harvard%20Letter%20from%20the%20Feds%204-3-2025.pdf.

Note: Clicking on the images may clarify the text.

Skip the Letter?

A few days ago, we posted about a law deans' letter concerning issues about Trump administration policy toward some major law firms.* One of the signatories was the dean of the UCLA School of Law. One professor there wrote a blog column about why he isn't going to sign a similar letter:

On not signing most open group letters by my fellow legal academics

by Prof. Stephen Bainbridge 

Last week, I signed an open letter to the Delaware legislature by a group of corporate law academics addressing aspects of Delaware SB 21, which was then pending before the Delaware House.

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:

1. "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."
2. "It speaks only to the “fears” of some, not all, of our students, and threatens to inflame the fears of other students."
3. What signal does it send to students "who support the current President and the legal policies of his administration. What exactly are [they] supposed to think when an overwhelming supermajority of the faculty, although purporting to speak “in their individual capacities,” jointly condemn those policies? [They] might be forgiven for wondering if [they] will get a fair shake during [their] time at the law school.

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.

Source: https://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2025/03/on-not-signing-most-open-group-letters-by-my-fellow-legal-academics.html.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/03/law-deans-letter.html.

Period of Adjustment

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." ...

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_bounce.

Tracking the Governor

As blog readers will know, we collect the videos put out by the governor in social media on a quarterly basis. He used to go in for lengthy addresses. But in recent years, except for budget presentations, he puts out short clips instead.

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.

UC Guide on Ending DEI Recruitment Statements

A UC-wide guide concerning the ending of required DEI statements in recruiting was circulated in an email yesterday. It runs eight pages with frequently asked questions.

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

The Names, They Are A'Changing

Email received today:

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.

Where there's smoke...

As blog readers will know, the Academic Senate has held several meetings regarding a proposal to move from quarters to semesters. The meetings were called by petition, i.e., forced on the agenda by petition. So we can assume that this topic was not something Senate leaders were anxious to discuss. And, so far, the meetings have not produced an actual vote.*

The Senate chair has insisted that there is no plan at UCOP to make such a change in calendar. But somehow, there is a report on the Senate website about just that topic. It got there somehow. Someone wanted the topic to be studied. There has to be a back story here.

In any event, the report is available and can be read and commented on. Go to:

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/apc-academic-calendar-workgroup-draft-report.pdf 

to see the report and make any comments you have. Comments are due on May 30. Directions on how to submit comments are on the first page of the cover letter.

And by the way, since there is said to be no plan to do anything, why is there a deadline on comments? What's the urgency about a non-plan? Just asking...

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-special-assembly-meeting-of-march.html.

Princeton is not Columbia (but there are institutional reasons why)

 From Inside Higher Ed:

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...

Full story at https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2025/04/princeton-news-adpol-trustees-approve-financial-aid-funding-cuts-federal-government-trump-freeze-hiring.

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).

Nobody Knows - At UC-SD or Elsewhere

From the San Diego Union-Tribune:

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.” ...

Full story at https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2025/03/30/whats-in-store-for-ucsd-with-campus-leaders-largely-mum-faculty-and-students-are-on-edge/.

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.

Letter to Columbia University Detailing Conditions for Restoration of Funding - Part 10 (Greetings from #3)

One Columbia president stepped down after a year of turmoil. An interim president signed a deal with the feds but privately told faculty something else in a Zoom call that became public. So president #3 was appointed by the Trustees from their own board. She sent the following message on taking office:

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.

There is no overstating the influence Columbia has had on my life. When I arrived on College Walk in 1982, I wasn’t your typical student. I had transferred into the first class of women, not appreciating that fact at the time. I grew up in the Midwest, and I wasn’t particularly well-versed in the Ivy League. What I found here was a place that ignited my curiosity and drive to explore. As is the case for so many students, I arrived at Columbia, and something clicked. I recognized myself.

This is what happens at Columbia. We love the sharp argument, the intellectual sprawl, the sense that anything feels possible. I returned for graduate school and then served on the SIPA Advisory Board, the College Board of Visitors, and the Board of Trustees, hooked on all the ways this remarkable place keeps pushing the frontiers of scholarship and discovery.

I want to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Katrina Armstrong for taking on the challenge of stepping in as Interim President, and for her heroic efforts over the past seven months.

Over the coming days and weeks, I hope to meet and talk with as many of you as I can. If you see me, please come and say hello. I want to hear from you, and I would welcome input about how we can build a shared sense of community.

We will continue to build on the significant progress we’ve made, and the plan outlined to move our community forward.

To be clear—our task is not an easy one. But a skill Columbia teaches all of us is perseverance; my request, right now, is that we all—students, faculty, staff, and everyone in this remarkable place—come together and work to protect and support this invaluable repository of knowledge, this home to the next generation of intellectual explorers, and this place of great and continuing promise.

I look forward to seeing you on campus.

Sincerely,
Claire Shipman
Acting President, Columbia University in the City of New York

Source: https://communications.news.columbia.edu/news/message-acting-president-claire-shipman.

Fernald Closing

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.

===

*https://dailybruin.com/2025/03/20/ucla-child-care-center-to-close-attendees-to-move-to-krieger-center-in-september.

Low Applications Campuses Grow the Most

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.
 

Latest at Harvard

From a US Dept. of Education news release:

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.

Watch the Regents Meeting of March 20, 2025

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:

https://ia800809.us.archive.org/31/items/1-board-8-30-am-3-20-2025/1-Board%208_30%20AM%203-20-2025.mp4.

The resumed board session is at:

https://ia800809.us.archive.org/31/items/1-board-8-30-am-3-20-2025/2-Board%2011_30%20AM%203-20-2025.mp4.

Public Engagement and Development is at:

https://ia600809.us.archive.org/31/items/1-board-8-30-am-3-20-2025/3-Public%20Engagement%20and%20Development%20Committee%203-20-2025.mp4.

New Subway Notice

This notice recently appeared, although it refers to work that began during the week of March 17:

Lowering Material for Support of Excavation at UCLA Station  Summary  Metro 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  Lane closure of westbound lanes between Malcolm Ave and Veteran Ave  Closure of eastbound center left turn lanes onto Gayley Ave  Restricted right turns onto northbound Gayley Ave  Through traffic and local driveway access maintained  Gayley Ave  Lane closures on northbound and southbound Gayley Ave between Lindbrook Ave and Ashton Ave  Through traffic and local driveway access maintained  Westwood Blvd  Closure of southbound right turn lanes onto westbound Wilshire Blvd  Through traffic and local driveway access maintained  == Source: https://cloud.sfmc.metro.net/SOE_UCLAStation.

 

The Special Assembly Meeting of March 25, 2025

There were action items on the agenda of the special March 25th, 2 pm, systemwide Assembly meeting of the Academic Senate which had been called by petition. A little over 300 people were on the Zoom call at the start of the meeting. Most were not members of the Assembly. Yours truly attended so you didn't have to.

The first item asked that across-the-board pay increases for administrators from dean on up occur at the same time as those for regular faculty. In recent years, the former had been getting increases on July 1 and the faculty on October 1. It became clear from the discussion that this vote was largely symbolic of concern by faculty about excessive salaries for top management. Chair Steven Cheung at one point called the resolution "mean-spirited." That remark set off some controversy. A vote was taken first by electronic hand raising. Twenty were reported as in favor, 2 abstained, and 23 voted against. There was some uncertainty about the accuracy of the vote and a roll call was pursued which came out about the same. It was ruled that the motion had failed.

The second matter dealt with a report about converting the entire UC system to a common calendar of semesters. It was said that ultimately it would be the decision of the Regents, were such a conversion to happen. There was debate about the merit of semesters vs. quarters, about the cost of making a transition, and whether it would be best to let the Senate process run its course before making any decisions. 

Chair Cheung said that there is currently no plan for changing calendars at UCOP. Several speakers indicated that given the current budgetary situation, federal funding, and other challenges facing UC, this was not a time to consider adding the burden of changing the calendar.

The there was an action item over a motion that initially assumed any change would be from quarters (for those campuses on quarters) to semesters. A clarifying point was that UC-San Francisco - because it has no undergraduates - would be exempt. The motion was amended to suggest that there be a campus-by-campus vote on adopting a common calendar (whatever that might be) versus remaining on each campus's existing calendar. But by the time a vote might have been taken (around 3:50 pm), a quorum of Assembly members had been lost. 

As a result, no vote was taken and the matter will either be taken up again at another special session or at the next regular meeting of the Assembly if there is room on the agenda.

===

Note: Do you have a sense that not much was accomplished after two meetings and one meeting that was aborted by a technical glitch? Yours truly does.

The Endless Scams

You know enough not to respond in any way to messages like the one above, don't you? One hint is that the word "assistance" is incorrectly spelled. Another is that it comes from a weird email address. Basically, even without such hints, if you get an email, phone message, or text from a company, never directly respond. Instead look up the phone number or contact information from the company and use that information to find out if there is really a problem.

=============

Here's another scam from "Cordelia":

Note the odd return email address. Things didn't work out well for the Cordelia in King Lear. They won't work out well for you if you engage with this Cordelia.

Law Deans' Letter

Letter from Law Deans (including UCLA) dated March 26, 2025:

As deans of law schools, we have a special responsibility for the legal profession. Recently, the federal government has imposed significant sanctions on the law firms of Perkins Coie, Covington & Burling, Paul Weiss, and Jenner & Block seemingly because of the clients they and their lawyers represented and litigation in which their lawyers participated. 

We write to reaffirm basic principles: The government should not punish lawyers and law firms for the clients they represent, absent specific findings that such representation was illegal or unethical. Punishing lawyers for their representation and advocacy violates the First Amendment and undermines the Sixth Amendment. 

We thus speak as legal educators, responsible for training the next generation of lawyers, in condemning any government efforts to punish lawyers or their firms based on the identity of their clients or for their zealous lawful and ethical advocacy.

===

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7310732031653523458/.

===

Letter to Columbia University Detailing Conditions for Restoration of Funding - Part 9 (Rationale)

Although the item below was put out by a Columbia University group of alumni and others, you can likely take it to be a quasi-official rationale as to why Columbia is doing what it is doing. It is expressed in less diplomatic language than the University would likely utilize. But it's hard to believe that the group would publish it without tacit support of the powers-that-be at Columbia.*

No, the Endowment Cannot Be Used to “Fight Trump” -  by Stand Columbia Society

3-29-2025

Let’s put it in perspective: the federal government spends Columbia’s entire endowment of $15 billion every 20 hours. It spends Columbia’s entire annual budget of over $6 billion over the course of a work day. That’s how fast it moves. There is no world where Columbia University can outspend or outmaneuver the federal government.

This narrative is coming from people who, at best, are naively optimistic. At worst, they’re chest-beating chickenhawks eager to volunteer other people’s careers, funding, and futures for their riskless and performative moral grandstanding.

Case in point: The American Prospect recently published a piece titled “Columbia’s Capitulation, and Wesleyan’s Pushback”. The President of Wesleyan University, Dr. Michael Roth, gravely intoned that he understood that Wesleyan was also exposed to the same federal funding threats. “Of course, I think about that. And then I think that’s the classic collaborationist dilemma, right?” Profile in courage? Not quite. Wesleyan gets $9 million a year in federal research grants. Columbia gets $1.3 billion, nearly 150 times more. There are individual faculty members at Columbia whose grant portfolios are larger than all of Wesleyan University.

On July 11, 1804, Princeton alumnus (and seditious traitor) Aaron Burr infamously shot and killed Columbia alumnus Alexander Hamilton. Two hundred and twenty-one years later, the President of Princeton, Dr. Christopher Eisgruber, urged us to “speak up and litigate forcefully”, essentially volunteer to be shot, presumably to protect Princeton. History does not repeat, but it sometimes rhymes.

This post will do what too few have done: think through what would actually happen if Columbia decided to litigate its way out of the government’s threats, and thoroughly debunk this piece of disinformation.

What Is an Endowment?

Let’s start with the basics. An endowment is not a pile of gold coins that sits in some subterranean vault guarded by a three-headed dog or possibly Smaug the Dragon. It’s not a magical reservoir of cash. It is not Scrooge McDuck’s money bin.

Columbia’s endowment is worth approximately $14.8 billion as of June 30, 2024, and is made up of more than 6,450 distinct funds, most of which are restricted for a specific purpose. The most well-known ones are endowed chairs, where the professor’s salary, benefits, and sometimes research are funded by the proceeds of that endowment. An endowed chair in say, physics, usually cannot be “reallocated” to pay for funding shortfalls in mathematics or legal defense funds or PR campaigns.

We say “usually” because there are exceptions. To use an endowment for another purpose requires either the donor’s explicit consent or a court process involving the New York State Attorney General. Restrictions are serious—there have been cases when non-profits have skirted donor intent and have been sued by their donors, sometimes resulting in “clawbacks” of funds. Here’s one involving Princeton.

Approximately $4.8 billion of the $14.8 billion headline number are unrestricted funds, which means they are not dedicated for a specific purpose. But even those are governed by university policies and laws around prudent use of institutional funds and fiduciary responsibilities. The legal bar for using an endowment’s principal—a process known as “decapitalization”—is so high (and also requires donor permission) that we did not do it in the financial crisis of 2008 or even during COVID in 2020.

Two professors recently volunteered themselves and their colleagues for a “10 percent pay cut” to cross-subsidize losses while launching a legal battle against the Trump administration. That’s a meaningless gesture, although we suppose it sounds brave. A professor cannot decapitalize his or her own endowed chair. He or she certainly can’t decapitalize someone else’s, and definitely cannot decapitalize funds for financial aid and other endowed purposes. This is moral signaling with Monopoly money.

Why the Endowment Can’t Be Used to “Fight Trump”

Let’s be generous and assume we even wanted to use Columbia’s endowment as a war chest. What would that look like? Well, we have a few problems.

First, the endowment is not liquid. As of June 30, 2024, about $4.8 billion of Columbia’s endowment is unrestricted. However, that is not liquid. Only 3% are in cash or bonds. The rest are in private equity, global (public) equities, venture capital, hedge funds, and real estate.  The global secondary market for stakes in private funds is approximately $87 billion per year, and so liquidating Columbia’s unrestricted portfolio is a material—and potentially market-moving—component of that. That means we will likely take a “haircut” of up to 10% if we were to attempt to turn that volume of assets into cash on short notice—and that is at the end of a sale process that may take months. (10% is generous and assumes high-quality buyout funds; if Columbia is exposed to venture capital or exotic financial instruments, the discount would be even more punitive.) So $4.8 billion in private assets would turn into $4.3 billion in cash.

Second, we have to reserve cash for working capital. Like many universities, Columbia has a mismatched working capital cycle. Specifically, Columbia takes, on average, 55 days to collect cash and 28 days to pay cash. This makes sense (and is common among universities) because government grants, tuition, and insurance reimbursements might take months to materialize, but payroll must happen every few weeks.

What this means is that Columbia must keep approximately one month’s worth of cash on hand to fund this mismatched cycle, which is over $500 million in 2024. $4.3 billion would then become $3.8 billion.

Third, we’d buy less than two years. As we have discussed previously, the federal government gives Columbia nearly $2 billion per year in financial assistance between federal grants ($1.3 billion), Medicare and Medicaid (at least $350 million, likely more), and federal student aid ($318 million). If we torch the entire unrestricted endowment, which dates back nearly three centuries, we would buy less than two years to “fight Trump”.

Fourth, the federal government can continue to inflict damage on us. We have not touched on another important aspect. As we observed last November, the federal government has multiple attack vectors against Columbia.  For example, the Trump administration might use student visas. Axios reported earlier this week that the Trump administration might declare entire institutions ineligible for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, which is the heart of U.S. visa issuance for international students. This is a unilateral executive branch decision. International students pay ~$800 million in tuition per year to Columbia because they are (almost) all full-freight paying students with fairly few eligible for financial aid. If we cannot easily replace 14,000 international students with American students, our cash runway will only fall further. And let’s not forget the lurking specter of an endowment tax.

Fifth, it’s simply not enough. This cash runway is not even enough time to get to the midterms, much less the rest of the Trump administration. So, what exactly is the plan here? Burn the ship to light the sky?

OK, Let’s Fight Trump Anyway. How Would That Work?

Let’s say we do it anyway. Columbia decapitalizes the endowment, burns through cash reserves, and prepares to fight the federal government. What would it take for that strategy to succeed?

Well, you’d have to believe in a sequence of highly optimistic, borderline fantastical outcomes. Here’s what that roadmap looks like:

    Legal Victory at Every Level. Columbia would need to challenge federal funding cuts in court—and win at every stage. That means success not just in initial rulings, but also through appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court. No missteps, no setbacks, no unfavorable decisions. And all done quickly, before we run out of cash.

    No Retaliation from the Executive Branch. You’d also have to believe that, once litigation begins, the administration wouldn’t respond with further cuts. Right now, $430 million is explicitly at risk. But Columbia receives close to $2 billion annually in federal support—through grants, healthcare reimbursements, and student aid. The full spectrum of federal financial support (worth over $5 billion over multiple years) could be next, as the government has already signalled.

    Congress Won’t Step In. Even if Columbia wins in court, you’d have to believe that a GOP-controlled Congress wouldn’t simply rewrite the rules—by removing Columbia from future federal appropriations altogether. If Congress includes an anti-Columbia provision in federal appropriations, it’s virtually impossible to reverse it until Columbia allies are in the majority of both houses of Congress and control the White House.

    Our Best Faculty Won’t Leave. Every university will try to poach our best faculty. That’s how rival law firms responded to Paul Weiss. (From the NYT: “We waited for firms to support us in the wake of the president’s executive order,” Paul Weiss’s chairman, Brad Karp, wrote in an email to the firm on Sunday. “Disappointingly, far from support, we learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys.”) Faculty who want to preserve their research portfolios will take their ideas, staff, students and labs elsewhere. It happened after 1968. It can happen again.

    A Decade of Favorable Elections. You’d also need to count on the next two to three election cycles—midterms and presidential contests—to go Columbia’s way. Our cash reserves might give us less than two years of runway. Sustaining this battle would require consistent political wins for a decade or more.

    A Surge in Alumni Giving. Finally, you’d need to believe that alumni donations would not only hold steady, but skyrocket to fund the fight. Last year, Columbia raised $653 million in gifts, including one-time mega-gifts. Are we supposed to believe that openly dedicating the university to “fighting Trump” will magically triple those numbers (necessary to backfill the $2 billion hole)—despite the risk of alienating large segments of our base?

If even one of those goes sideways, then it’s game over. Professor Charlie Eaton, an economic sociologist at UC Merced, missed every single one of these points in his chest-beating NYT op-ed “$15 Billion Is Enough to Fight a President.” His principled and courageous willingness to fight to the last Columbia professor and the last dollar of Columbia’s endowment is a sight to behold.

And what exactly are we dying on the hill for? The right of students to take over University buildings? The right to kidnap and injure staff? The right to act as a distribution arm of the “Hamas Media Office”? This is the wrong hill to die on. None of this is broadly supported by the American public, to whom Columbia is not just a beneficiary but a steward of taxpayer money. And they’re not causes that justify permanent institutional damage.

This Is Really, Really, Really Stupid

To recap: this idea isn’t bold. It isn’t radical. It’s not even a protest. It’s financial malpractice. It’s strategic lunacy. And it’s all being driven by people who think they won’t lose their research labs (if they even have them), retirement and tuition benefits, health insurance, housing, or jobs when this fantasy inevitably implodes.

The armchair warriors instructing us to fight Trump? Volunteer your own institutions instead. Don’t demand that Columbia—or its students, faculty, or staff—burn their futures for your moment of performative glory. Our mission is important: if you are not comfortable doing your part to teach the next generation, conduct cutting-edge research, deliver the world’s best clinical care, and be a good neighbor, we would ask you to act according to your convictions and let the rest of our faculty, students and staff move forward. Columbia University is too important to the United States and the world.

In the meantime, the University has work to do. Things like rebuilding public trust, repairing the social contract with the American people, and securing its role as one of this nation’s great research institutions. And that means leaving the cringe-worthy performative heroics to the Internet, where they belong.

Source: https://standcolumbia.org/2025/03/29/issue-037-no-the-endowment-cannot-be-used-to-fight-trump/.

===

*UPDATE: In a private unsigned email to yours truly, Stand Columbia denies coordinating its analysis with Columbia.