Bond - Part 2

Bill to place a $23 billion bond to fund scientific research in California on the November ballot clears Senate Health Committee

UC Office of the President

University of California-sponsored legislation, SB 895 by Senator Scott Wiener, passed the Senate Health Committee on a 9-2 vote... March 25. As UC faces one of the most significant disruptions to its research enterprise in its 158-year history, this bipartisan legislation would place a $23 billion bond to fund scientific research across California on the November 2026 ballot. If passed by voters, the measure would help preserve research central to protecting jobs, sustaining lifesaving medical advancements, supporting the health of California communities and maintaining the state’s global leadership in innovation.

“In all my time at UC, I have never seen a more precarious situation for scientific research and greater challenges to our economy, our workforce development, and most importantly our public health,” Kim Elaine Barrett, Ph.D., vice dean for Research at the UC Davis School of Medicine, said at yesterday’s hearing. “Research at UC generates as much as $55.2 billion in economic activity every year — medical breakthroughs alone generate approximately $13 billion in economic activity across California. California has been a leader in scientific inquiry and should invest in its ability to protect jobs, health care, and the economic future of our state.”

Prior to the hearing, over five dozen letters from researchers and faculty were submitted on behalf of the University and over 2,500 emails were sent to lawmakers in support of SB 895 and the critical research funding the bill would provide...

Full news release at https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/bill-place-23-billion-bond-fund-scientific-research-california-november-ballot-clears.

Straws in the Wind - Part 299

From the NY Times: Boston University removed Pride flags that were displayed in campus buildings this month, angering professors who believe school leaders may be suppressing expression because they fear the Trump administration. University officials have suggested the displays could imply the school endorses them, violating its pledge to be evenhanded with its standards around speech. The university’s decision is a new skirmish in academia about campus expression, and it comes after more schools across the country embraced so-called neutrality policies, curbing the views they express publicly. Universities have also imposed more stringent limits on protests in the years since demonstrations over the war in Gaza rocked campuses.

But the debate in Boston involves flags, not encampments. According to the university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, the school temporarily removed at least three Pride flags, including one belonging to the Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program. That one was taken down and folded neatly during spring break.

...The First Amendment’s speech protections on their own do not apply at the private university, giving campus leaders more authority than some of their counterparts to determine what may be displayed on school property. The university said in a statement that it “upholds a content-neutral policy” around campus expression and that “outward-facing signage moves speech from an individual perspective to an institutional perspective.” ...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/23/us/boston-university-pride-flags-free-speech.html.

No, you were not invited

The Regents had another 30-minute, closed-door meeting yesterday about you-know-what:

TO THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA:

Because the membership of the Advisory Group on Research and Programs Funding Legal Issues (“Advisory Group”) includes five members of the Regents’ Governance Committee, there exists the potential for having present a quorum of a Regents’ Committee when the advisory committee meets.

This notice of meeting is served in order to comply fully with pertinent open meeting laws.

On Tuesday, March 31, 2026, there will be a Closed Session, Special Meeting of the Regents’ Governance Committee concurrent with the Advisory Group to discuss Research and Programs Funding Legal Issues (Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code section 92032(b)(5)].)

The meeting will convene at 4:00 p.m. at 1111 Franklin Street, Oakland and adjourn at approximately 4:30 p.m.

(Advisory Group members: Regents Anguiano, Cohen, Hernandez, Matosantos, Milliken, Reilly, Robinson, Sarris, and Sures)

Source: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/mar26/federal_meeting_march-31-2026.pdf.