What Agostini Said About Intercollegiate Athletics

As blog readers will know, we have been exploring budgetary data for UCLA. The figures we have presented so far are all aggregates, although - as we have (critically) noted - different sources include different aggregations ranging from the entire enterprise (including hospital revenues) down to "discretionary" items (not clearly defined). 

Blog readers will also know that UCLA recently fired former CFO Agostini for saying past data were not reliable due to financial mismanagement. But before he left, Agostini left us a budget book which provided a more micro division by "units."

One of the units that has attracted attention is Intercollegiate Athletics. In principle, Athletics - taken as a whole - is not supposed to cost anything, i.e., it is supposed to generate revenues from TV rights, game admissions, and other sources sufficient to cover costs. The big money makers are football and basketball. But in recent years, revenues have not covered costs.

Below are Agostini's figures for Intercollegiate Athletics. The figures for the current year 2025-26 are projections made in Sept. 2025 (before later coaching staff hiring). There was a reclassification of "All Other Funds" in the current year with much of the total now listed as "Auxilliaries." There seem to be recharges from some other non-athletic source in the first year shown, but then other funds seem to be able to recharge Athletics for some costs. There are likely to be some payments directly to student-athletes from Name-Image-Likeness rights that are not represented on the the table.

Presumably, the $10 million "tax" being paid to UC-Berkeley thanks to the Regents is part of noncompensation costs.

Since Agostini is no longer here, we can't ask him what exactly is entailed on the various lines. But there is no indication on the table that the Athletics program is moving to self-support.

Source: https://dn720904.ca.archive.org/0/items/ucla-budget-book-v-final-feb-2026/UCLA%20Budget%20Book%20v%20FINAL%20Feb%202026.pdf.

Straws in the Wind - Part 298

From the Columbia Daily Spectator: The House Committee on Energy and Commerce launched an antidiscrimination investigation into Columbia on Tuesday via a letter to acting University President Claire Shipman, CC ’86, SIPA ’94. The committee will look into whether areas of the University—particularly the Columbia University Irving Medical Center and the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons—that receive federal funding from the Department of Health and Human Services are complying with provisions of the Civil Rights Act. Committee chairman Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), the author of the letter, said the inquiry will examine whether the University is maintaining a safe environment for members of its community.

“The Committee is troubled by recent reports and allegations raising questions about Columbia University’s willingness to uphold its commitments to protect Jewish students, faculty, and staff,” Guthrie wrote in a Thursday news release accompanying his letter. “The fact that Columbia receives hundreds of millions of dollars from HHS and its subagencies, coupled with the serious concerns regarding its compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws, demonstrates that further oversight is needed.”

The letter calls for Columbia to provide answers to over a dozen questions surrounding the University’s handling of antidiscrimination complaints by April 7, including how many of those complaints were related to antisemitism...

Full story at https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2026/03/26/house-committee-on-energy-and-commerce-announces-antidiscrimination-investigation-into-columbia/. Letter at https://ia600402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/Columbia%20Energy_and_Commerce_Letter_to_Columbia_University_3-24-2026.pdf.

Will Harvard Continue to Lead the Charge? - Part 135

From the Harvard Crimson: Harvard argued in a Thursday filing that the Justice Department’s latest lawsuit largely repackages the Trump administration’s earlier, unsuccessful effort to strip the University of federal funding over allegations it mishandled campus antisemitism. In a seven-page filing, Harvard’s lawyers urged the court to reject the government’s effort to link the suit to two prior antisemitism cases — and instead treat it as a continuation of the University’s 2025 case against the Trump administration in which a federal judge ruled that the administration had acted unlawfully in cutting Harvard’s funding.

...The filing centers on a technical dispute over case assignment. The Justice Department has argued that its March 20 complaint is “related” to two private lawsuits filed in 2024, including one brought by Harvard Divinity School graduate Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum, which were heard by U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns. But Harvard countered that the government omitted what it described as the most relevant precedent: its earlier lawsuit against the Trump administration, which was decided in September by U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs...

Full story at https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2026/3/28/harvard-filing-doj-lawsuit/.

Revising Discipline

Currently under systemwide Senate review - with comments due by May 19* - are UC procedures for student discipline. Excerpt from cover letter:

...In the spring of 2025, former President Drake requested a review of the student conduct and discipline governance, process, and procedures as defined in systemwide and campus policies and related guidance. Key features of this review included:

• A description of the student conduct and discipline governance, process, and procedures in effect at each UC campus, including average timelines for each stage in the process relative to any policy-required timelines, and any notable or significant procedural differences across campuses.

• In partnership with UC Legal, a review of campus disciplinary investigations and an assessment of consistency.

• An assessment of and recommendations related to systemwide standards regarding student conduct procedures, outcomes, and timely resolution...

One guesses that Drake was motivated by the events of 2024 in calling for the review, although there is no reference to those events in the cover letter. In any case, if the intent was to change the procedures and penalties in response, not much was done. Much of the revision involves compliance with state legislation dealing with misbehavior related to drug or alcohol abuse and creates alternative treatment options. Most of the misbehavior cited involves actions unrelated to the events of 2024: things such as cheating, sexual harassment, etc. There is some reference to obstructing academic activities, but it appears that no changes were made to related rules or processes. There is some added language which allows reasonable, but limited, procedural delay caused by unavailability of an advisor to the student accused of misbehavior.

You can find the cover letter and documentation under review at:

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/systemwide-senate-review-pacaos-100.pdf.

===

*The Senate wants comments by May 19. The cover letter refers to June 11.

Straws in the Wind - Part 297

From Inside Higher Ed: The Trump administration cut off funding for area studies and foreign language education in September, putting an end to the flow of financial support for centers and programs that assisted national security strategy for decades. Justifying the cuts, the administration has said these kinds of programs are “inconsistent with Administration priorities and do not advance American interests or values.” For years, area studies centers were funded through National Resource Center grants as part of Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Congress partially restored this funding in its most recent budget, but the damage to area studies may be irreversible. 

The University of Washington, home to one of the nation’s oldest area studies centers, lost $2.5 million in National Resource Center and foreign language grants—half of which went directly to student scholarships—for the 2025–26 academic year. The University of Michigan lost about $3.4 million and the University of Kansas lost $2 million. Western Washington University’s Center for Canadian-American Studies reportedly took a 70 percent hit to its budget after the Title VI funds were pulled.

...Facing a hostile presidential administration, institutions are unlikely to stick their necks out too far for area studies, said Zachary Lockman, a historian and professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies at New York University. “They’re skeptical. They’re all in austerity mode. They’re under attack,” Lockman said. “Many of them just want to fly under the radar and remain invisible, so giving money to people whom the Department of Education sees as enemies of the Trump administration doesn’t seem like a wise tactic to them.” ...

[The] symbiotic government–university partnership worked for a while. But in the 1970s, while the U.S. was at war in Vietnam, that relationship began to fracture, experts explained. Government officials started to think that they weren’t getting their anticipated return on investment, [Osamah] Khalil [of Syracuse University] said. It was never a requirement that recipients of federal fellowships work for the government afterward—and in large part, they did not, he said. “One of the things that came out of Vietnam was this idea that ‘We’re not getting the experts that we wanted out of this. We’re getting campus radicals who are protesting U.S. foreign policy’”... 

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/business/academic-programs/2026/03/26/area-studies-once-vital-wither-without-funding.

Getting In - Part 3

We have been displaying Facebook ads aimed at parents who want their kids to get into top universities. But in California, to get into any UC or CSU, you must complete the A-G required courses in high school. Many don't. From CalMatters:

...Statewide, 54% of high school students pass the classes minimally needed to enroll in the University of California or California State University systems as freshmen, according to a CalMatters analysis of traditional high schools. In recent years the state has provided extra funding to help schools boost their numbers, but the readiness rate has only inched up. Low-income, Black and Latino students have among the lowest class-completion rates. English learners and students with disabilities also have low rates, but the numbers have climbed slightly the past few years.

California’s two public university systems require all students applying for admission to earn a C or better in a suite of courses. The requirements are four years of English, three of math, two years each of science, social science and foreign language and one year of art. Known as the A-G requirements, they often dictate a student’s schedule beginning in ninth grade or even earlier. It’s easy for a student to fall off track — by getting a D or F in a class, for instance, or by skipping a tough class like chemistry or trigonometry, or by not taking a class if their school doesn’t offer it.  

CalMatters looked at data from the 2024-25 school year for 1,468 public high schools, excluding about 800 alternative high schools, some specialized schools with high A-G rates, continuation schools and juvenile detention programs. The analysis shows that 222 of those schools posted A-G completion rates of less than 30%. More than 400 schools had A-G rates exceeding 70%.

Schools may have few students completing the full suite of A-G courses for a variety of reasons, said Sherrie Reed Bennett and Michal Kurlaender, education researchers at UC Davis who wrote a 2023 analysis on the gaps in A-G rates across public high schools. Some schools may offer the courses, but students don’t enroll in them. Or students earn below a C in these courses and don’t retake them after school or during the summer. Next, teachers may not allow students to repeat assignments in order to avoid having to retake a class; some schools allow this. Meanwhile, nearly a tenth of traditional high schools didn’t offer the needed courses, the researchers’ data show... 

Full story at https://calmatters.org/education/k-12-education/2026/03/college-admission-california/.

Watch the Afternoon Meetings of the Regents: March 18, 2026

We continue catching up with the Regents' March sessions.

At the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee, one consent item was approved without discussion. The Committee then turned to the UCLA sports medicine and lab project to be placed in an existing structure that requires substantial internal modifications.*

It was reported that the winning contractor's bid came in 38% below estimate. Other than a comment by Chair Cohen that he was happy to hear of the discount, the project was approved without discussion.

The other UCLA project was the 19-story undergrad dorm to be constructed at 901 Levering Avenue which we took note of in an earlier post.** It was presented by AVC Michael Beck. Regent Makarechian raised the issue of cost. He compared it with a mid-Wilshire Building that UCLA had bought for grad students and noted the lower cost there. Beck said that building was a distressed sale by a developer. A second issue raised by Makarechian was bathroom construction. The plan has 8 students sharing two bathrooms. Makarechian said at no cost the bathrooms could be divided for multiple use. Beck said ADA compliance would prevent such a division. But Makarechian noted that ADA compliance did not require all bathrooms in all apartments. Beck agreed to come back with an alternative bathroom arrangement.

Another issue raised was that grad students have been displaced from the immediate campus area. But the project was approved.

Academic and Student Affairs approved professional program tuition increases for various medical degrees. It was noted that the number of Pell grant recipients had recently dropped, but the reasons for that decrease were not known at this point.

The Compliance and Audit Committee then approved some technical amendments with no discussion. There was then a presentation by KPMG, a new auditor, about its audit for the current fiscal year. It was said that AI would be used to analyze audit data. The plan was approved.

The Board then met for a brief meeting in which the reports from the various committees were approved.

===

As always, we preserve recordings of Regents meetings because the Regents have no policy about retention.

The sessions of Finance and Capital Strategies, Academic and Student Affairs, and Compliance and Audit are at:

https://ia601500.us.archive.org/18/items/regents-board-am-3-18-2026/Regents%20Finance%20and%20Capital%20Strategies%2C%20Academic%20and%20Student%20Affairs%2C%20Compliance%20and%20Audit%20Committees%203-18-2026.mp4.

The afternoon Board meeting is at:

https://ia801500.us.archive.org/18/items/regents-board-am-3-18-2026/Regents%20Board%2C%20Committee%20Reports%203-18-2026.mp4. 

===

*We previously discussed this project at https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/03/new-off-campus-health-complex.html.

**https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/03/big.html.

Straws in the Wind - Part 296

From Inside Higher Ed: The halfway point of the federal fiscal year looms at month’s end, yet the National Institutes of Health has only obligated around 15 percent of the estimated $38 billion it has to distribute in grants and contracts to universities and other research institutions, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. The AAMC [last] Tuesday released an analysis of data from NIH’s RePORTER site, showing it had only obligated $5.8 billion as of [the previous] Friday, compared to nearly $9 billion by that date in the final full fiscal year of the Biden administration. When the NIH “obligates” funding, it has sent an institution a notice saying the dollars are available to its researchers to spend...

The report says that current funding rates “raise concerns” that the NIH could be in a similar situation to last year, when it was forced to accelerate its spending to obligate the full amount of its budget by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. According to the AAMC, last year the NIH obligated over half of the necessary research funds to institutions in the final three months of the fiscal year, July to September. Many of the grants were obligated through controversial multiyear funding of individual grants that reduced the number of new grants it distributed over all.

The agency’s own data also suggest that the careers of early-career researchers were particularly harmed by fewer grant awards last year...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/science-research-policy/2026/03/25/aamc-nih-has-only-obligated-15-external-research.

Getting In - Part 2

Yesterday, we noted a Facebook ad promising to get your kid into a UC and featuring a former "reader" of applications to Berkeley. It was more of a hard sell. Act Now! Today we find a (somewhat) softer sell from a former admissions "officer" from UCLA and UC-San Diego:

Is Your Teen Interested in a UC School? Learn What a Strong Application Looks Like!

UC Applications: 250,000+ per year. 9 campuses, each unique.

Get insider knowledge from former UCLA and UC San Diego admissions directors!

• How top schools like UCLA & UCSD differ in what they want

• The truth about major choice & academic rigor

• Build a balanced list to boost admission odds

Ready for your teen's strategic head start?

Register now!

In the end, both ads are designed to get you to hit the panic button.

He ain't here... (for budget explanations) - Part 4 - Update

In our last iteration of "He ain't here...," we noted a Daily Bruin article describing an email sent by UCLA's interim CFO on budget affairs. We surmised from that article that the email likely gave no data or definitions of data other than citing a projected $220 million deficit for the current fiscal year.

Someone has now forwarded the email to yours truly.* It's not clear why I didn't get it directly; perhaps it wasn't sent to emeriti. But, in any case, the surmise was correct. The only number cited in the email is the deficit figure, without definition. From the email:

Based on approved spending plans and current planning assumptions, UCLA’s closing deficit on central accounts for FY26 is projected at approximately $220 million. You may have seen previous references in the media to a higher deficit figure. That projection included uncommitted funds: spending requests that had not yet been approved and did not therefore reflect UCLA’s projected closing deficit on central accounts.

The email came with an FAQ attachment.** In it, there is a question about the former CFO's deficit estimate of $425 million:

Where did the $425 million figure come from?

You may have seen previous references in the media to a higher deficit figure. That projection included uncommitted funds: spending requests that had not yet been approved and did not therefore reflect UCLA’s projected closing deficit on central accounts.

So what do we learn? It appears that it isn't the case that the CFO gave out a false number. It is common practice in public sector budgeting to make what-if projections, i.e.. what would happen to the budget if all planned spending were to occur and nothing was done to change inflows of revenue. For example, at the state level, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) typically releases a workload projection of this type before the governor releases his budget proposal.

If you look at the budget book the former CFO Agostini provided just before he was fired, it contains a breakdown by academic unit.*** You will find a footnote for the units that indicates the projections for the current year 2025-26 were as of September 2025. So it appears the figures in the budget book were really starting numbers for the year. Between September 2025 and February 2026 when the budget book was released, the powers-that-be at UCLA (probably including the CFO) had made some course corrections, bringing down the starting projection from $425 million to $220 million.

It remains the case, as we have repeatedly pointed out, that precise definitions remain elusive. And there is no information on reserves. If an organization is spending more than it is taking in, it has to be pulling the difference from somewhere. And what you have in reserve matters.

Let's take a simple example. If you have an ongoing deficit of $220 million and you have only $100 million in reserve, you have an immediate emergency. Drastic and quick action must be taken. If you have a billion dollars in reserve, you have a problem, but you also have some time - about four and a half years - to correct that problem.

In short, what is needed remains the same. When we talk about UCLA running a deficit, what portion of UCLA are we talking about? Is it everything including the hospitals? Is it some carved out sector? When we talk about a deficit, are we talking about the difference between revenue and expenditure in a specified fiscal year? And what are the reserves which have been financing the deficits?

===

*The email is at https://ia803207.us.archive.org/35/items/ucla-budget-book-v-final-feb-2026/Interim%20CFO%20message%20to%20campus%203-26-2026.pdf. As blog readers will know, we are preserving all budget documents on the Internet Archive in case any of them disappear. The complete collection is at https://archive.org/details/ucla-budget-book-v-final-feb-2026.

**https://ia803207.us.archive.org/35/items/ucla-budget-book-v-final-feb-2026/Interim%20CFO%20FAQ%20message%20to%20campus%203-26-2026.pdf.

***https://ia903207.us.archive.org/35/items/ucla-budget-book-v-final-feb-2026/UCLA%20Budget%20Book%20v%20FINAL%20Feb%202026.pdf.

Watch the Morning Meetings of the Regents: March 18, 2026

We're catching up with the Regents. We previously posted about the March 17 sessions.* Here we focus on the morning of March 18:

The meeting began with public comments. Topics included Academic Advancement funding for UCLA, confidentiality of sexual violence reports, notice of immigration agents on campuses, textbook costs and open access course materials, the shutdown of the UC-Davis equestrian team, Teamsters issues including health plan costs and bilingual pay, Carpenters Union contract concerns, antisemitism including accountability and retaliation for filing complaints, medical care for immigrant and international students, security and safety for UC social workers, African American funding at UC-Berkeley, the recent Dept. of Justice lawsuit and academic freedom, Native American artifacts, hiring by UC of undocumented students, AFSCME pay issues, and the use of the bear symbol of Native American students.

After public comments, the undergraduate student representative discussed diversity concerns, A-G course UC admissions requirements in high schools, repatriation of Native American artifacts, disabled student issues, and Basic Needs. The graduate student representative discussed Native American artifacts, AI, sexual assault, and student advocacy in Sacramento.

There followed a session on Basic Needs with data on sending and other elements of the program. Budgetary pressures were discussed. It was said that while spending was not being reduced, there was growing demand for the program outstripping the current supply of services. 

Finally, the Governance Committee approved an executive pay item for Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, to be paid by the US Dept. of Energy. (Governance was originally scheduled for the morning but the open session component occurred in the afternoon.)

---

As always, we preserve recordings of Regents meetings since the Regents have no policy on duration of retention.

The morning board meeting including public comments is available at https://ia801500.us.archive.org/18/items/regents-board-am-3-18-2026/Regents%20Board%20AM%203-18-2026.mp4.

The Governance Committee segment can be seen at https://ia801500.us.archive.org/18/items/regents-board-am-3-18-2026/Regents%20Governance%20Committee%203-18-2026.mp4.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/03/watch-regents-meeting-of-march-17-2026.html.

Straws in the Wind - Part 295

From the Chronicle of Higher Education: Faculty members and students at the University of Kansas recently voted no confidence in the institution’s chancellor, Douglas A. Girod, by an overwhelming margin — but the university is sharply disputing the vote’s validity. The results of an online survey were largely critical of Girod, with nearly 80 percent of respondents saying they didn’t have faith in his leadership. But Kansas administrators are calling the survey an “entirely unscientific, informal straw poll” created by two rogue faculty leaders and “shared only with a small subset of the university population — specifically a subset the authors knew would support their narrative.”

The survey results, and the university’s denunciation, arrive at a tumultuous time for Kansas. Changes in nationwide rules governing payments to athletes and a $450-million renovation to the football stadium have prompted questions about the university’s sports spending. And while the poll was live, the university was negotiating its first contract with the faculty union. While the parties have since come to a tentative agreement, a university spokesman characterized the vote as a “pressure tactic” designed to influence the process.

The poll was disseminated by the presidents of Kansas’ Faculty Senate and University Senate, two elected positions. But the faculty leaders acted independently in sending it, and the survey “does not represent a formal action of governance,” said Joe Monaco, associate vice chancellor for public affairs. The survey did not require respondents to verify their affiliation with Kansas, and allowed multiple submissions by the same user, casting doubt on its legitimacy, he said. The poll was also emailed directly to “specific groups the authors assumed would be aligned with their predetermined narratives” and posted on social-media accounts not affiliated with the university, Monaco added...

...The flow of funding between the university and its athletic department was a particular cause for concern. Historically, the athletic department has sent the university about $15 million each year as a kind of reimbursement for the free tuition, housing, and other benefits athletes enjoy, according to The Lawrence Times. But a landmark settlement in 2025 allowed universities to pay athletes directly for the first time, up to about $20 million per institution. That new expense has made athletic departments’ budgets tighter, including at Kansas, which has stopped the $15-million payments to the campus to help it make ends meet. In the memo to Girod and the board chair, Kansas’ Faculty Senate referenced “funds from a general fund or any academic pool of funds” being used to cover stipends for athletes. Monaco said no tuition or taxpayer money is being used to pay athletes...

Full story at https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-of-kansas-faculty-and-students-voted-no-confidence-in-the-chancellor-or-did-they.

Getting In

There seems to be a proliferation of ads on Facebook offering parents the secrets of admission to top universities. Not clear on the timing of such advertising. The fellow above claims to have been a "reader" of applications at Berkeley. Text:

If your kid is in 9th or 10th grade and you don't have a college plan yet, you're already behind the families whose kids get into Berkeley and UCLA.

Not because they're smarter. Because they started earlier.

I was a UC Berkeley admissions reader.

I saw thousands of applications from smart kids who waited until junior year.

Most got rejected.

The difference wasn't talent.

It was timing.

This free guide shows you exactly what needs to happen in 9th and 10th grade - before the window closes.

Get it now while there's still time to course-correct.

Note that the idea that you-need-to-act-now is classic late-night TV advertising. Act now before... (fill in the rest).

He ain't here... (for budget explanations) - Part 3

As blog readers will know, we have been following the UCLA budget issue, the firing of CFO Agostini, and all that.* One of the complaints about Agostini before he produced his budget book, was that there were no numbers being presented, just intimations about large deficits. The budget book he finally released then produced numbers for the current year (projected) and the two prior years.**

As we have also noted, numbers without definitions are not helpful. UCLA is a huge institution. When you talk about the budget, do you mean the entire enterprise including, for example, hospital revenue? Or do you mean something narrower?

When you talk about deficits, do you mean the difference between the flow of revenue and the flow of spending over a fiscal year? Or do you mean some kind of mix of years? Are you mixing past debt with current flows?

If you don't specify what you mean, providing a deficit number is not helpful.

Given that understanding of the problem, take a look at the excerpt from the Daily Bruin below:

UCLA is projected to generate a $220 million deficit for the 2025-26 fiscal year, its interim chief financial officer announced in a Thursday email. The estimate comes more than a month after Stephen Agostini, the university’s former CFO, alleged to the Daily Bruin that financial mismanagement – both from current and past administrators – contributed to an annual projected deficit of $425 million. Reem Hanna-Harwell, who became UCLA’s interim chief financial officer in February, said in the email that higher deficit estimates previously reported in the media were inaccurate, as they included spending requests that had not yet been approved...

Full story at https://dailybruin.com/2026/03/26/interim-cfo-says-uclas-budget-deficit-is-markedly-lower-than-previous-estimates.

Do you see any definitions in the Bruin article? Maybe they are present in the "Thursday email." Maybe they are not. The article says Agostini's "deficit" was $425 million for the current fiscal year. He may have said that was the number (without defining it). But when you look at his budget book, his deficit number for his definition of the portion of UCLA he was covering was in fact in the ballpark of the $220 million for 2025-26 now being put out. (His deficit number for the current year was about $290 million.)

Let's make this simple. First, it is not helpful to throw out undefined numbers. Let's not have the new CFO commit the sins of the previous one. Second, missing from all the numbers that have been issued so far (by the current CFO and the previous CFO) is information on reserves. If you are in a situation in which you are spending more money than you are taking in, you must be getting the difference from somewhere. That somewhere is presumably the reserves you have built up in the past. So what do you have now? And if you are projected to spend $220 million more than your revenue, how much in reserves will be left?

And by the way, there is a buried lede in the Bruin article:

...The UC Office of the President is... reviewing UCLA’s spending projections...

Translated: Yours truly is not the only one now interested in what's going on with UCLA's numbers.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/03/he-aint-here-for-budget-explanations_0514550503.html; https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/03/he-aint-here-for-budget-explanations.html.

===

The definition of coverage by Agostini in his budget book was narrower than the entire UCLA enterprise, but bigger than the coverage supplied by his replacement that only covered "discretionary" elements of the budget.

Dalia Dassa Kaye of the UCLA Burkle Center on Iran War

An recent analysis of the Iran War by Dalia Dassa Kaye of the UCLA Burkle Center this past Wednesday can be found at the link below:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_a5ev3ElLc.

Spinoff

From the LA Business Journal: ...Equatic is a spinoff company of UCLA’s Institute for Carbon Management (ICM). It was created to activate the size and scale of the oceans to effect affordable and globally accessible carbon management solutions. The oceans are the world’s largest carbon removal machine. Year after year, they remove about 30% of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities into the atmosphere.

At ICM, [Equatic] has been driven by two strategic considerations. First, the traditional paradigm of sequestering carbon dioxide in geological reservoirs using Carbon Capture and Storage, or CCS, will not mature quickly enough, or sufficiently, to affect the trajectory of climate change. Second, we must focus on catalyzing affordable climate change mitigation because existing carbon management solutions remain far too expensive for widespread adoption. To address these two concerns, Equatic’s technology platform was designed to leverage the oceans to both remove and store carbon dioxide while producing green hydrogen, a clean fuel, as a co-product...

Equatic, a Santa Monica-based carbon removal startup, is using the world’s largest and most abundant carbon capture technology: the ocean.

Equatic, the brainchild of Gaurav Sant and Erika La Plante, was born out of the Institute for Carbon Management at the University of California, Los Angeles. The company raised $11.6 million in series A funding in August – led by Catalytic Capital for Climate and Health, a division of Singapore-based Temasek Trust, and climate-focused private investment firm Kibo Invest. At its core, Equatic is creating a 100-kiloton commercial-grade carbon dioxide removal facility. The goal is to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use it to produce carbon-negative green hydrogen in one process. 

The platform feeds seawater into its facility and, using renewable energy, dissects that seawater into hydrogen, oxygen, base and acid components. The acid is neutralized and returned to the ocean, while the base helps remove carbon dioxide from the air. Equatic’s platform is designed to solve two problems. One is sourcing and collecting valuable green energy, which is meant to help the world wean off fossil fuels; and the other is neutralizing existing carbon emissions from the atmosphere...

Full story at https://labusinessjournal.com/special-reports/whos-who-in-tech-equatic-is-sinking-in-the-ocean/.

Straws in the Wind - Part 294

From Inside Higher Ed: Kansas lawmakers cut a deal that would end in-state tuition for undocumented students... House Republicans in the State Legislature supported the decades-old policy for months, passing legislation that allowed immigrant students to receive in-state tuition if they attended a Kansas high school for three years and applied for citizenship. The Senate’s version of the bill ended the program entirely.

However, during talks to resolve the different versions of the legislation, SB 254, a conference committee agreed to nix the policy in exchange for the Senate dropping provisions aimed at denying bond to undocumented immigrants and presumed those charged with a crime were a flight risk. The House signed off on the compromise last week, and the Senate has yet to vote on it as of Monday afternoon. The effort to strip in-state tuition from undocumented students comes as the Trump administration has sued several states over similar policies, arguing they violate federal laws. In three of the seven lawsuits, the states agreed with the administration and scrapped their state laws. Kansas was not targeted, but state Attorney General Kris Kobach wrote in an opinion that the state law was illegal...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2026/03/24/kansas-could-end-state-rates-undocumented-students.

UC-San Diego Med School Admissions Investigation

The US Dept. of Justice has announced an investigation into three med schools including at UC-San Diego, apparently related to the Supreme Court's anti-affirmative action decision. From the NY Times:

The Trump administration has opened investigations into admissions policies at three major medical schools, expanding the federal government’s pressure campaign beyond campus culture and taking aim at the heart of scientific authority in the United States. The Justice Department on Wednesday informed Stanford University, the Ohio State University, and the University of California, San Diego, about the investigations and demanded that the schools turn over extensive lists of data by April 24 or risk interruptions to essential federal funding...

The government is seeking information about medical school applicants from each of the past seven years, including test scores, home ZIP codes and any familial relationships to alumni or ties to university donors. The administration also demanded copies of any internal messages at the universities about diversity, equity and inclusion and any correspondence between school officials and pharmaceutical companies about admissions policies...

Officials at all three universities confirmed they had been notified about the inquiries. A Stanford spokeswoman declined to comment. U.C. San Diego said it was reviewing the notice from the Justice Department and that it was “committed to fair processes in all of our programs and activities, including admissions, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.” ...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/26/us/politics/trump-medical-schools-civil-rights.html.

Time to Reconsider?

Back in 1974, a change in the state constitution allowed for the appointment of a student regents and a faculty regent. At the time, however, the faculty - or at least the Senate - decided that having a voting faculty regent wouldn't be appropriate. As a result, the faculty head of the Academic Council is a nonvoting representative at the regents, but not a regent. Students had no such scruples about what was appropriate and student regents (with voting rights) began to be appointed.

Students are now pushing for a second voting student regent and a constitutional amendment to that effect is floating around in the legislature.* Of course, there is a long distance between dropping a bill in the legislature to put a constitutional amendment and the enactment of such an amendment by state voters. But maybe it's now time for faculty to consider having a faculty regent, a position which is authorized but not filled.

You can argue that it is rare for a single vote to decide matters at the regents. On the other hand, it is certainly not clear that not having a vote buys the faculty more influence, whatever folks may have thought in 1974.

====

*https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202520260aca18.

Straws in the Wind - Part 293

From the Columbia Daily Spectator: The Middle States Commission on Higher Education has reaffirmed Columbia’s accreditation, the University acknowledged Thursday. It came months after the commission previously threatened its status in June 2025, issuing a warning due to “insufficient evidence” that Columbia was in compliance with its “Ethics and Integrity” standards. The commission, a nonprofit recognized by the Department of Education, wrote in a March 12 web page update that Columbia’s accreditation has been reaffirmed because the University “is now in compliance with Standard II (Ethics and Integrity),” which mandates that an institution adhere to its mission and represent itself truthfully.

The accreditation warning came amid wider federal scrutiny on Columbia, including the University’s May 2025 violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 due to the federal government finding Columbia to have acted “with deliberate indifference” toward the harassment of Jewish students on campus since Oct. 7, 2023. The University resolved the Title VI violation in its July 2025 $221 million deal with President Donald Trump’s administration, which restored $400 million in canceled federal funding to Columbia.

The deal also saw the Department of Education notify the commission that Columbia was no longer in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws. That violation was the department’s initial reasoning for the University failing to meet its accreditation standards in June 2025...

Full story at https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2026/03/23/middle-states-commission-on-higher-education-reaffirms-columbias-accreditation-after-previous-warning/.

New and Renewed Regents

President James B. Milliken statement on Board of Regents appointments and reappointments

March 23, 2026

UC President James B. Milliken welcomed Gov. Gavin Newsom’s appointments of Carl “Chip” Robertson, Dorene Dominguez, Mabelle Hueston, and John “Rusty” Areias to UC's governing board, and the reappointments of Board of Regents Chair Janet Reilly and Regent Greg Sarris, and released the following statement today (March 23, 2026):

I am delighted that Governor Newsom has named four new members to the UC Board of Regents today. Each brings new perspectives and a depth of experience that will strengthen our board and serve the University of California. I look forward to working with them as we build on the University’s extraordinary legacy of academic excellence, life-saving research, and world-class patient care.

I’m also pleased that Board Chair Janet Reilly and Regent Greg Sarris have been reappointed to the board by the Governor. Chair Reilly has been a valuable partner and leader in my first months as president. Regent Sarris’s deep commitment to student support and success is a cornerstone of how we fulfill our mission. I am grateful to them both for their collaboration and commitment to our University.

Source: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/president-james-b-milliken-statement-board-regents-appointments-and-reappointments

===

From news release of governor:

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/03/23/governor-newsom-announces-appointments-3-23-2026/

New Appointments:

Dorene Dominguez, of Los Angeles, has been appointed to the University of California Board of Regents. Dominguez has been Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Vanir Construction Management since 2004 and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Vanir Group of Companies since 1989. She is Chairwoman of The Dominguez Dream, a Trustee of Hesburgh Women of Impact at the University of Notre Dame, a Board Member of the Audit Committee and Nominating and Governance Committee at Douglas Emmet Inc., Board Member at kb Home, and Member of the Aspen Conexión Advisory Council. Dominguez earned a Bachelor of Business Administration degree in Finance from the University of Notre Dame. This position requires Senate confirmation and there is no compensation. Dominguez is a Republican.

Carl “Chip” Robertson, of Los Angeles, has been appointed to the University of California Board of Regents. Robertson has been a Co-Managing Partner at Warland Investments Company since 2009. He was a Management Committee Member at Dax LLC from 2000 to 2014. Robertson was an Associate at Paul Hastings LLP from 1999 to 2001. He is a Member of the Board of Directors of the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, Jewish Vocational Services of Los Angeles, and the California Coalition for Public Higher Education, and Member of the Board of Visitors for the University of California, Los Angeles School of Education and Information Studies and Board of Advisors for the UC/CSU Collaborative for Neuroscience, Learning and Diversity. Robertson earned a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, a Diploma in Business Studies from the London School of Economics, a Master of Business Administration degree from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a Bachelor of Arts degree in History from the University of California, Berkeley. This position requires Senate confirmation and there is no compensation. Robertson is a Democrat.

John “Rusty” Areias, of Walnut Grove, has been appointed to the University of California Board of Regents. He has been a Partner at California Strategies since 2002. He was the Director at the California Department of Parks and Recreation from 1998 to 2001. Areias was an Assemblymember in the California State Assembly from 1982 to 1994. He earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Agriculture from California State University, Chico. This position requires Senate confirmation and there is no compensation. Areias is a Democrat.

Renewed Appointments:

Janet Reilly, of San Francisco, has been reappointed to the University of California Board of Regents, where she has served since 2019. Reilly has been Co-Owner and Columnist for the San Francisco Examiner since 2020, Columnist for the Nob Hill Gazette since 2016, and Co-Founder and President of the Board of Directors for Clinic by the Bay since 2008. She was Director of The Presidio Trust from 2015 to 2018. Reilly was Director of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District from 2003 to 2015. She was Executive Producer and On-Air Television Host of The Mix with Janet Reilly at NBC Bay Area – KNTV from 2014 to 2015. Reilly was Director of Public Relations for Mervyn’s Department Stores from 1997 to 2001. Reilly was a District Representative for Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan from 1993 to 1995. She was an On-Air Television Reporter and Anchor at KGWN-TV from 1990 to 1992. Reilly is a Member of the Board of Directors of CommonSpirit Health Foundation and Advisory Board of the Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good at the University of San Francisco. She earned a Master of Science degree in Journalism from Northwestern University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from University of California, Los Angeles. This position requires Senate confirmation and there is no compensation. Reilly is a Democrat.

Gregory Sarris, of Sonoma, has been reappointed to the University of California Board of Regents, where he served since 2023. Sarris has been Chairman of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria since 1996. He was the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria Endowed Chair in Creative Writing and Native American Studies at Sonoma State University from 2005 to 2021. Sarris was a Professor of Creative Writing and Literature at Loyola Marymount University from 2001 to 2005. He was a Full Professor of English at the University of California, Los Angeles from 1989 to 2001. Sarris earned a Doctor of Education degree in Modern Thought and Literature and a Master of Arts degree in Creative Writing from Stanford University and a Bachelor of Arts degree in English from the University of California, Los Angeles. This position requires Senate confirmation and there is no compensation. Sarris is a Democrat.

===

According to the bios on the Regents' website, Regent Richard Leib, former Board chair, had his appointment expire this month. It apparently was not renewed.

Ex Officio: A Brief Look at the Governor's Proposal

An Ex Officio Brief

Most of the UC Regents are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the State Senate for 12-year terms. However, there are also alumni and student Regents who serve as voting members for one year. And finally, there are the ex officio Regents: the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the State Assembly, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the president of UC who serve as long as they are in office.

Except for the last, the other ex officio Regents are all elected, statewide officials whose positions are enshrined in the state constitution. The governor and the Speaker of the Assembly are generally busy with their main duties and - with the exception of former governor Jerry Brown - typically don't attend Regents meetings. The Lieutenant Governor - currently Eleni Kounalakis - doesn't have much to do under the constitution. She would become governor on the death or resignation of the governor. She also becomes acting governor whenever the governor is out of state. (That situation is becoming more frequent during the current governor's non-campaign for president.) So, without much else to do, she often does attend Regents meetings.* 

The Superintendent of Public Instruction primarily is involved in matters related to K-12 on a day-to-day basis. However, Governor Newsom recently proposed downgrading the responsibilities of Superintendent, essentially moving his responsibilities to the governor and his cabinet. Undoubtedly, he would have proposed eliminating the position entirely, but since it is enshrined in the constitution, that step would take a constitutional amendment. Depending on where you stand, the proposed downgrading of the Superintendent could be seen as a power grab or, alternatively, as a reform designed for good governance and efficiency. Either way, we would primarily be talking about governance of K-12 education.

As it happens, however, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has generally endorsed the governor's proposal. You can find the details at:

https://edsource.org/2026/newsom-education-restructuring-california/754254 and

https://lao.ca.gov/reports/2026/5165/2026-27_Re-Envisioning_State_Education_Governance_031826.pdf.

What is absent from the LAO's analysis of the plan is higher education. As noted, the Superintendent is an ex officio Regent. If the governor and LAO have their way, the role of the Superintendent would become some kind of external evaluator of K-12 operations. He would, however, continue as an ex officio Regent. So we would then have two ex officio Regents with day jobs that don't give them much else to do, as opposed to only the Lieutenant Governor now.

Is that a Good Thing for UC? Yours truly doesn't know. If you think of the Superintendent of Public Instruction as a link between UC and the K-12 system, a weakened Superintendent, as proposed by the governor, would mean a weakened link. Maybe that doesn't much matter; maybe it does. But now you know.

===

*Lieutenant Governors often have gubernatorial ambitions. (Newsom was Lieutenant Governor for 8 long years before being elected governor.) But those ambitions don't always work out. Lieutenant Governor Kounalakis is currently running for State Treasurer after dropping a campaign for governor. (Tony Thurmond, the current Superintendent of Public Instruction, is running for governor.)

Straws in the Wind - Part 292

From the NY Times: The Trump administration is pursuing a civil rights investigation into antisemitism at Cornell University, months after the Ivy League school signed a settlement intended to end a pressure campaign by the federal government. The inquiry, which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is leading and that Cornell publicly acknowledged on Thursday, appears focused on whether the university allowed antisemitic discrimination against workers. As a part of the investigation, the federal agency sought this week to survey current and former Cornell employees... One question asked workers whether they had been subjected to a range of behaviors, including “antisemitic or anti-Israeli protests, gatherings or demonstrations” that left them feeling threatened, “because you practice Judaism, have Jewish ancestry, are Israeli” or are associated with an Israeli or Jewish person.

Other questions inquired whether a person had reported potential antisemitism to Cornell; believed that Cornell was using “rubrics or programs” to give preference to people on the basis of religion, national origin or other protected classes; or participated in university training that addressed antisemitism. The E.E.O.C., which reached many people through personal email addresses, asked Cornell employees to respond by March 31, and it urged recipients not to take the survey during work hours or on university-owned devices. The E.E.O.C. declined to comment...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/19/us/trump-administration-cornell-employees-antisemitism-eeoc.html.

Will Harvard Continue to Lead the Charge? - Part 134

From a US Dept. of Education Press Release: ...The U.S. Department of Education (the Department)’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened two new investigations into Harvard University (Harvard) amid allegations that it continues to discriminate against students on the basis of race, color, and national origin in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI).  OCR will investigate whether Harvard continues to use illegal race-based preferences in admissions despite the Supreme Court’s definitive ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. OCR will also investigate alleged ongoing antisemitic harassment on Harvard’s campus and the institution’s purported failure to protect Jewish students. The Trump Administration will evaluate both complaints and, if continued discrimination is found, take action to hold Harvard accountable for any illegal policies or actions.  

OCR also issued a Letter of Impending Enforcement Action to Harvard today for its continued refusal to provide requested information relating to its admissions process. In May 2025, OCR opened a review to determine if Harvard is still using racial stereotypes and preferences in undergraduate admissions. Despite OCR’s repeated requests for data, Harvard has refused to provide responsive information, which is necessary for OCR to make a compliance determination. Harvard has 20 calendar days to comply with OCR’s information requests or the school will face enforcement actions, including referral to the U.S. Department of Justice...

Full release at https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-civil-rights-opens-two-new-probes-harvard-university-continued-discrimination-campus.

Watch the Regents Meeting of March 17, 2026

The March meetings of the Regents took place at UC-San Francisco on March 17 and 18 rather than the March 17-19 period originally scheduled.

The meeting on the 17th was somewhat reduced in length, beginning at 10:30 AM rather than 8:30 AM. It began with public comments. Commenters spoke on return of Native American artifacts, funding for the UCLA Advancement Program, out-of-state tuition, immigration enforcement, food assistance, Basic Needs, ending of the UC-Davis equestrian program, the AMCHA antisemitism report, processing of antisemitism complaints, student housing projects, UC funding for grad students, a property dispute with a farm near UC-Davis, Teamsters' issues including violence against hospital employees, doctor bargaining issues including protection of immigrants, anti-Israel, and divestment from fossil fuels.

Public Comments were followed by the Investments Committee. The Investment Academy at Merced was described. CFO Bachhar made generally bullish remarks about AI from a long-run perspective. It was noted that on a market basis, thanks to increases in the stock market, the pension plan was 92% funded on a market basis and 86% of an actuarial basis, i.e., with 5-year smoothing of returns. Regent Makarechian nonetheless raised the issue of a need for increased pension contributions.

Regent Hernandez suggested that the committee should discuss demands for divestment from "military" assets. If you are a really faithful reader of this blog, you may recall a discussion of this matter during the May 14, 2024 meetiong of this committee. At that time, CFO Bachhar came up with the tabulation in response to a student letter demanding various military and Israel divestments. He said that UC at that time held $32 billion of such assets of which $12 billion were US Treasury obligations.* This time, however, Bachhar went further and said that a literal divestments of military assets would essentially involve selling off all US holdings. You can see his remarks at:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj-Fsaqa7y8.

There was a very brief open meeting of the Health Services Committee in which information on the potential impact of the state Office of Health Care Affordability on UC hospitals was on the agenda in written form. There was no discussion.

Finally, the full board session started with remarks about the effect of that Office and other factors as it related to student health care, particularly students eligible for Medi-Cal, and the need to allow such students to utilize student campus health care programs. 

Chair Reilly went over the upcoming agenda. President Milliken spoke about concerns regarding public perceptions of higher education which were colored by issues of cost and tensions over limited admissions. He cited UC's transfer programs as one way UC was addressing such perceptions and referenced "lifetime learning" as another. Faculty representative Palazoglu, in his remarks, referenced federal research funding concerns and rising labor costs of graduate student workers. He noted the possibility of a state bond measure that would fund research.

The Regents then heard a presentation on the UC Inspires Program which is supposed to bridge the gap between research and commercialization of research findings. Various examples were presented such as a new laser treatment for glaucoma. 

Finally, the Regents approved funding for upgrading a hospital purchased by UC-San Diego.

---

As always, we preserve recording of Regents meetings since the Regents have no policy on duration of retention. You can find the video recordings for March 17 at:

https://archive.org/details/regents-3-17-2026.

===

*See our discussion of that meeting at https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2024/05/watch-regents-meeting-of-may-14-2024.html. If you go to the link there for the Investments Committee, this discussion occurs primarily at 1:45:25 to 1:54:00 with scattered remarks thereafter.

Straws in the Wind - Part 291

From the NY Times: One year ago, the Trump administration froze $400 million in federal research funding for Columbia University because of what the White House called an antisemitism and harassment problem on its campus. The move sent shock waves through higher education, as Columbia became the first major target of a Trump campaign to bring elite universities to heel. Columbia decided to negotiate, reaching a preliminary agreement with the White House on March 21 and then a final deal in July.

The atmosphere at Columbia is quite different from what it was in March 2025, in part because of these agreements. The leadership has also changed. A year ago, Dr. Katrina Armstrong was the interim president, but she was replaced by Claire Shipman, who is the acting president. Another change is imminent: Jennifer Mnookin, the chancellor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was chosen in January to lead Columbia and will start in July. But did Columbia follow through on all of its pledges? One year on, where does Columbia stand?

...In its March 2025 letter, the Trump administration demanded a mask ban for protesters, comprehensive rules for demonstrations to prevent them from being disruptive, and strict punishment — meaning expulsion or multiyear suspensions — for the students who had participated in pro-Palestinian encampments or occupied a campus building in April 2024. Columbia agreed, with some modifications, to these conditions. But not everything has worked out as planned. Columbia overhauled student discipline by moving the panel that oversees rules infractions from the jurisdiction of the 111-member university senate, which is led by faculty members, to the provost’s office. Students no longer serve on the judicial panels. Columbia administrators also took control of establishing protest rules, removing the senate’s role. The Trump administration, and other critics, believed the senate was insufficiently committed to cracking down on rule violations by demonstrators.

...While Columbia did not ban masks at demonstrations, it did agree to punish masked student protesters who break rules and refused to identify themselves when asked. That happened during the Butler Library protest, when demonstrators who did not show identification were held in a room and arrested...

...A class called History of Modern Israel, taught by Avi Shilon, a visiting professor from Israel, was disrupted in January 2025 by masked pro-Palestinian demonstrators, who accused the class of whitewashing Israeli actions and handed out fliers that said “Crush Zionism.” Professor Shilon said that he had expected at least some disruption at a symposium he helped to organize nine months later, titled “The State of Zionism after October 7,” which included scholars from Israel, the United States and Europe. Instead, he said by email this week from Tel Aviv, the symposium was constructive and well-attended. Columbia provided security, but it wasn’t needed...

...The Trump administration demanded that Columbia’s Middle East, South Asian and African Studies Department be placed under academic receivership for five years, an extreme step that would remove its independence. From the start, Columbia did not assent, viewing the order as a threat to academic freedom, one of its red lines. In its March 2025 agreement, Columbia pledged only to review the department, and to suggest new programs and teaching positions. It then appointed a new senior vice provost, Miguel Urquiola, who in turn selected a committee of experts — including a scholar from the Middle East studies department — to recommend reforms. Those recommendations, issued in February, focused on hiring more professors in the social sciences with expertise in the Middle East. Timothy Mitchell, the Middle East studies professor who served on the committee, said that “nothing has been done to curtail the academic independence of the department.” ...

As part of its pledge to punish student groups for violating its rules, Columbia adopted a “zero tolerance policy” toward organizations “that promote violence or encourage disruptions of our academic mission.” The primary target was Columbia University Apartheid Divest, or CUAD, the coalition behind the 2024 encampments... CUAD now has no link to the university...

Columbia agreed in July to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance definition of antisemitism in its disciplinary system, a step that the Trump administration had demanded... Columbia officials disagree on whether this rule chills academic discourse. None of its anti-discrimination policies may be construed to “abridge academic freedom and inquiry or principles of free speech, or the university’s educational mission,” the university wrote in an August statement...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/21/nyregion/one-year-after-trumps-400-million-ultimatum-a-different-columbia.html.

Westwood Boulevard Project

As blog readers will know, there is a plan to rejigger traffic on Westwood Boulevard from UCLA all the way to the light rail station on Exposition Boulevard.* The changes involve carving out bus lanes and bicycle lanes. A Zoom meeting last Thursday evening which yours truly attended provided more detail.

City staff on the Zoom call referred to a ballot proposition passed by voters that required certain elements at a minimum. These included bus lanes between UCLA and Wilshire and a protected bicycle lane between Ohio and Santa Monica Blvd. Between Santa Monica Blvd. and the light rail station at Exposition Blvd., bicycle lanes (apparently not protected) are required.

However, the City plans to go beyond the minimums and will install protected bike lanes over the entire route. Bus lanes will extend from Santa Monica Blvd. to UCLA. Bus lanes will be earmarked for buses 24/7.

It was said that emergency vehicles, such as ambulances going to UCLA hospital, would be able to use the bus lanes. (It wasn't clear to yours truly how this would work. Normally, when an ambulance siren is heard, vehicles are supposed to pull over to the right to allow passage. But the bus lane will be at the right against a protected bike lane. If there is a bus in the lane, how would it pull over for the ambulance?)

In any case, the goal is to get all this work done before the 2028 Olympics. However, City staff indicated that the work might not be complete by then. If it isn't complete, construction equipment, etc., would be removed. (It wasn't clear how a half-done construction job wouldn't adversely affect traffic flows in the UCLA area during the Olympics.)

City staff said their models of traffic flow would only increase travel time by a minute and a half at peak hours and directions.

There is information about the Westwood Project at:

https://ladotlivablestreets.org/projects/westwood

City staff said the slides from the Zoom would be available there and maybe a recording. As of the writing of this posting, they weren't there.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/03/changing-westwood.html.