The Climate Wasn't Right for a New Senate Committee

The systemwide Academic Senate decided not to create a standing committee on climate change. Below is a summary of its reasoning:

...All 10 Senate divisions and four systemwide committees (UCEP, UCPB, UCORP, and UCRJ) provided comments in response to the proposal to establish a systemwide Academic Senate Committee on Climate Change and Sustainability. In general, reviewers agreed that climate change and sustainability are important long-term priorities and that the Senate should play an active role in addressing them. Many emphasized UC’s responsibility to provide leadership through research, education, and operations, and expressed support for improved coordination across campuses. However, there were mixed views on whether a new systemwide standing committee is the best mechanism to meet these goals.

While some reviewers supported the proposal as a way to increase coordination and provide a dedicated forum for faculty input into sustainability issues, many expressed skepticism. Several raised concerns that systemwide committees are usually organized around core functions rather than specific topics and that creating the committee could set a precedent for additional issuespecific committees.

A related concern was the potential redundancy with existing structures. Several reviewers pointed to the existing Senate committees and administrative bodies already engaged in sustainability efforts and questioned whether a new committee would add value or instead duplicate or fragment existing work. Some suggested that concentrating responsibility in a single committee could even reduce broader Senate engagement with climate issues.

Many reviewers noted that the proposal lacks clarity regarding the committee’s charge, scope, and authority. They called for clearer delineation of responsibilities relative to existing committees, better definition of its advisory versus operational role, and more detail on how it would interact with campus-level structures and represent divisional perspectives.

Reviewers also questioned how a systemwide committee would align with campus-level structures, noting that most Senate divisions do not have a corresponding committee and instead rely on administrative bodies to address climate change and sustainability issues. In this context, UCRJ clarified that Senate Bylaw 325 requires each division to designate a corresponding committee for every Committee of the Assembly. As a result, approval of the presented proposal would effectively require each division to establish a parallel committee.

Reviewers also raised concerns that creating a new standing committee would increase faculty service obligations and require additional staffing and financial support, yet the proposal does not provide cost estimates or identify necessary resources. Several noted that committees are more often created than eliminated and suggested that any new committee should be accompanied by reductions elsewhere or supported with new resources.

Several reviewers expressed concerns about potential overreach into curriculum and educational policy. They emphasized that any systemwide body must respect divisional control over academic programs and preserve academic freedom and recommended explicitly clarifying these boundaries in the proposal.

Some reviewers expressed interest in alternative approaches, such as charging existing Senate committees; creating subcommittees, time-limited task forces, or a pool of experts; convening regular systemwide meetings to address relevant topics; or pursuing non-Senate structures.

In summary, reviewers agreed that climate change and sustainability are high priorities and that greater coordination across UC is desirable. Support for the proposal is concentrated among the proposing divisions (UCSF and UCSD) and one additional division (UCSB), while others either declined to support or expressed mixed views. As a result, there is no clear consensus in favor of establishing a new systemwide standing committee. The prevailing view is that the proposal requires further clarification and stronger justification, particularly around scope, added value, and resource requirements, before it could receive broad support.

Conclusion: Given the lack of consensus in support of establishing a new standing committee, Council decided not to advance the proposal. At the same time, the systemwide review identified several recommendations for strengthening and advancing Senate engagement and coordination on climate change and sustainability issues without creating a new standing committee...

Full report of 6-26-2026 at https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/proposed-sw-committee-climate-sustainability.pdf.