Vetoed

From Politico: Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a measure... that would have required the California State University to compile annual reports on students who violate campus protest rules... [It requested UC to do he same.]

Key context: Originally, AB 2551 would have repealed a 2024 law that was signed in the wake of student-led protests against Israel’s war against Hamas to establish restrictions on campus protests. The law, SB 1287, required universities to update their codes of conduct to address behavior that “creates a hostile environment for students” and instruct students on how to engage in civil exchanges.

...A number of Jewish organizations opposed the final version of Elhawary’s bill, citing concerns that it was a first step in an effort to repeal the protest rules. The measure was backed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the California Faculty Association and the University of California Student Association, who argue that the current protest rules have chilled speech...

Full story at https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2026/09/newsom-vetoes-measure-that-would-collect-campus-protest-data-01093919.

Text of vetoed bill at:

https://ia600402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/AB%202551%20TEXT%20forum%20to%20discuss%20TPM%20rules%20vetoed%209-27-2026.pdf.

Veto message from governor at:

https://ia600402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/AB-2551%20VETO%20forum%20to%20discuss%20TPM%20rules%209-27-2026.pdf.

Eventual Bond

Note: The bond described below for the March 2028 ballot is different from the Prop 38 bond on the upcoming November 2026 ballot.

From the Daily Bruin: ...Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 895, a $7.5 billion bond measure that would fund science and health research at California universities and other institutions, on Wednesday. If approved, the bill would create the California Foundation for Science and Health Research and Innovation Acceleration Fund, which would distribute grants and loans to scientific research and development projects across the state. The foundation would fund projects spanning biomedicine, wildfire resilience, climate and environmental sciences and technology. The measure would also allocate $1 billion to maintain and repair UC and California State University research facilities...

Full story at https://dailybruin.com/2026/09/30/newsom-signs-uc-backed-7-5-billion-research-bond-measure-for-2028-ballot.

While we ponder...

From the LA Times: California high school students are increasingly taking the SAT, as more universities are again requiring standardized tests for admission and as the University of California is debating whether to reinstate its test requirement amid concerns over academic preparedness. In all, 138,763 California class of 2026 students took the SAT, up 12.6% from the prior year — and the largest gain in three years — according to data released Tuesday from the College Board, the nonprofit organization that develops and proctors the SAT.

Though the UC and California State University systems do not use the SAT or other standardized tests in admissions decisions, an increasing number of universities have reinstated testing requirements after many suspended them during the height of the pandemic, including the University of Texas, all Ivy League schools, Stanford and Caltech...

Full story at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-09-29/sat-test-free-college-admissions-uc-csu.

Under the radar

After all the controversy about A-G admissions requirements and reliance on high school grades versus SATs, this item about UC-Berkeley seems to have passed under the radar. From the Daily Cal:

The [UC-Berkeley] College of Letters and Science has changed how students can fulfill foreign language requirements. For those admitted fall 2026 and beyond, L&S students now must complete two semesters of a college-level foreign language course, or meet an equivalent competency through various exam scores. Accepted exam scores that fulfill the requirement include specific AP, IB or SAT subject tests and scores. For students admitted before fall 2026, three years of high school foreign language instruction still satisfies the requirement. The requirement is also fulfilled “by completing at least three years of secondary school in which the primary language of instruction was a language other than English, starting from grade 6 or above as verified by transcripts,” said campus spokesperson Sarah Fullerton.

The change reflects the shift to California General Education Transfer Curriculum, created by Assembly Bill 928, which standardized transfer requirements needed to enroll in a UC or a CSU, according to UC Office of the President spokesperson Omar Rodriguez... The L&S Executive Committee also determined that high school language instruction is not consistent or standardized, so students could come in with the same amount of language instruction time, but varying degrees of ability...

Full story at https://www.dailycal.org/news/campus/academics/uc-berkeley-no-longer-accepts-3-years-of-high-school-foreign-language-for-l-s/article_f194e0fe-c781-42c7-a179-0e95dd6d64c2.html. 

Bye Bye Master Plan

Whatever the details, the Master Plan for Higher Education is fast disappearing:

From the LA Times: California community colleges will be able to offer bachelor’s degrees that duplicate programs at California State University and University of California schools... under legislation approved [last] Friday by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The pair of bills scraps the state’s ban on community colleges offering any bachelor’s degree already available at CSU or UC, and replaces it with a system built around regional workforce needs and a district college’s performance. They cleared the legislature earlier this month after CSU and UC withdrew objections... The laws will take effect Jan. 1, 2028.

Chancellor Sonya Christian, who leads the community college system, had come out against the two related bills in the final days of the session. She said the versions lawmakers passed — and Newsom has approved — could create “more barriers” than currently exist for community colleges moving to provide new degree programs...

Full story at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-09-18/california-community-college-bachelors-degrees-newsom-law.

Veto

From CalMatters: California college students without legal immigration status still cannot work at public colleges and universities after Gov. Gavin Newsom again vetoed a bill Sunday that would have given them that right. Assembly Bill 713 would have adopted an untested legal theory that argues that a 1986 federal law barring employers from hiring workers in the country without authorization doesn’t apply to state governments. The logic? That 40-year-old law doesn’t mention state governments as a type of employer that cannot hire workers without proper status.

But for the second time in three years, Newsom decided that adopting that theory for California would expose the state’s higher-education system to the wrath of the federal government...

Full story at https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2026/09/newsom-veto-students-wtihout-legal-status/.

As we have pointed out previously, the bill did not in fact impose a mandate on UC, unlike CSU and the community colleges. It left the ultimate decision to the Regents:

This article shall apply to the University of California, unless it is found to be inapplicable to the university, then, consistent with Section 67400, this article shall apply to the university only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make it applicable.

See https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB713/id/3191073.

News accounts tend to omit this fact. Presumably, it was included in the bill because of the constitutional autonomy of the Regents.

More on Admissions

As the Regents prepare to discuss A-G admissions requirements, this summary of the requirements from the San Francisco Chronicle may be helpful:

....UC requires a more rigorous set of specific classes in history and science than the California State University system does to satisfy these requirements. UC also has slightly stricter rules than CSU, including fewer ways to fix course failures or omissions, and requiring more of those earlier poor grades to be submitted. UC also lets students submit more honors points.

...Two groups of Californians are automatically eligible for admission — though not necessarily to the UC campus of their choice:

• Students who score in the top 9% at their high school in UC-approved courses during junior and senior year.   
• Students who score in the top 12.5% of the state’s high school graduates.

...Most freshman applicants complete far more than the minimum of 15 A to G courses required to qualify for UC admission. Here is a look at the share of applicants admitted in 2025 compared with how many A to G classes they took: 

• 15 to 19: 5% of applicants. Admitted: 3%
• 20 to 24: 38% of applicants. Admitted: 27%
• At least 25: 58% of applicants. Admitted: 43%

...UC has not offered specifics about what changes, if any, could come from the [A-G] review. Among the possibilities are:

• Changes to the subject areas themselves.
• Changes to the number of required courses in each subject.
• Recommendations for going beyond the minimum requirements.

...The earliest the regents could consider any recommended changes would be in the second half of 2027. Even if they agreed to make changes, the new rules could take time to kick in...

Full story at https://www.sfchronicle.com/college-admissions/article/uc-a-g-requirements-review-22368092.php.

Ad Hoc or Master Plan - Part 2

Assemblymember Dorothy M. Donahoe
who pushed the 1960 Master Plan through the 
Legislature (Donahoe Act)
 but died before it was signed.

In an earlier post (Aug. 26), we noted that bills were moving through the legislature that would enhance the ability of community colleges to offer 4-year degrees. And we called for a new Master Plan process rather than ad hoc policy from the legislature. The bills are now on the governor's desk. Whether he will sign or veto is unknown. The immediate issue regarding community colleges is more a concern for CSU than UC. But the absence of a Master Plan is a long run concern for UC.

From the LA Times: ...Newsom has not signaled his view. He has rejected previous attempts since 2024 to let community colleges grant nursing bachelor’s degrees, when he warned such moves could cause conflict among the state’s three higher education systems...

Full story at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-09-01/california-community-college-bachelors-degrees-newsom-bills.

Less than meets the eye - Part 2

Undoubtedly, there will be public comment on AB 713 now on the governor's desk for signature or veto at the September Regents meeting (unless he vetoes it before the meeting). As we have noted previously (see Aug. 13 on this blog), the bill actually leaves the decision on whether UC can hire undocumented students to the Regents. It is a mandate for CSU and the community colleges but permissive for UC. 

From CalMatters: Is this the year that Gov. Gavin Newsom allows students without legal status to legally work at California’s public colleges and universities? A state bill with wide support from Democrats but opposed by Republicans seeks to do just that by adopting an untested legal theory that argues a 1980s federal law banning employment for people without legal status doesn’t apply to state agencies. But university leaders and Newsom worry that acting on the theory could put the state on another collision course with the Trump administration.

The bill easily cleared the Legislature Friday, including a yes vote from one Republican. The bill now heads to Newsom’s desk. Assembly Bill 713 by Assemblymember José Luis Solache, a Democrat from Lakewood, is seemingly straightforward: The University of California, California State University and community colleges cannot disqualify students without legal status from campus employment. If it becomes law, it would kick in Jan. 6...

Full story at https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2026/08/students-without-legal-status-california/.

===

Bill at https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB713/id/3191073. "This article shall apply to the University of California, unless it is found to be inapplicable to the university, then, consistent with Section 67400, this article shall apply to the university only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make it applicable."

They asked but got NIL

From CalMatters: CalMatters filed a lawsuit against UCLA [last] Monday after nearly a year of attempts to obtain information about how the university pays its student athletes. Last fall, CalMatters submitted records requests to 16 University of California and California State University campuses, seeking information about payments to their Division I athletes, but many schools provided little or no information in response. The lawsuit states that taxpayers are entitled to know the names of players who have received money and the teams they play on...

The universities pay student athletes for the right to use their name, image and likeness — NIL — in promotional materials. The payments also help recruit top athletes or dissuade them from seeking better pay elsewhere. UCLA and UC Berkeley, which have the most competitive and most lucrative athletics programs among the state’s public universities, initially rejected CalMatters’ records requests. They argued that sharing information about their payments to students would put their players at a competitive disadvantage or violate students’ right to privacy in education. 

After meeting with attorneys at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, which represented CalMatters, both universities provided some records, which give a first-of-its-kind glimpse into the new dynamics of college sports. They each said they spent about $20.5 million paying athletes in the 2025-26 academic year, which is the maximum amount allowed. UCLA said it paid 229 athletes. UC Berkeley said it paid 147...

Full story at https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2026/08/student-athlete-payments-california/. 

Ad Hoc Plan or Master Plan?

Assemblymember Dorothy M. Donahoe
who pushed the 1960 Master Plan through the 
Legislature (Donahoe Act)
 but died before it was signed.

From time to time, yours truly notes the need for a new Master Plan for Higher Education defining the roles of the three segments, and the tendency of the legislature to make ad hoc policy. A true master plan would involve a process of review involving the three segments - UC, CSU, community colleges - and various interest groups. Instead, we have piecemeal legislative efforts and interventions. From the Sacramento Bee: 

From the Sacramento Bee: Over the last decade, community colleges in California have slowly entered into what has historically been the purview of the University of California and the California State University: providing bachelor’s degrees. With the goal of increasing access and affordability, this new baccalaureate program adds to the California Community College system’s main offerings of certificate programs and two-year associate degrees. At present, more than 30 of the state’s 116 community colleges offer bachelor’s degrees in subjects including respiratory care, dental hygiene and mortuary science. But to be approved, these degrees must ensure not only that they meet regional workforce needs but also that they do not duplicate programs offered by the UC and CSU systems. This condition aimed to preserve the original mission of each higher education segment and ensure efficient use of state resources. 

Now, a pair of bills moving through the California Legislature may ease that restriction. Senate Bill 960 and Assembly Bill 2694, though somewhat different, would both allow community colleges to duplicate programs offered by traditional four-year public universities if they are not within the same geographic region. SB 960, in addition, would authorize duplication of bachelor’s degrees offered at CSUs in the same region if those programs have been oversubscribed for three consecutive years...

Full story at https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article316937137.html.

Note: The original Master Plan is at:

https://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/MasterPlan1960.pdf.

The A-G Charge

Yesterday, we noted that on August 11, the Academic Council had charged BOARS with analyzing the possible return of the SAT for admissions purposes. The Council also charged BOARS with analyzing the A-G requirements for high school students seeking admission to UC:

The Academic Council charges the 2026-27 Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) to: 1) initiate an overarching review of UC’s A-G framework to determine whether the number and general subject areas of currently required and recommended A-G courses adequately prepare first-year applicants for academic success at UC; and 2) submit an initial report to the Academic Council by May 14, 2027. BOARS should recognize, per Senate Bylaw 145.B.7, that “[t]he committee shall consult with representatives from the State Board of Education and K-12 

subject matter specialists on proposed changes to course requirements for undergraduate admissions.” As appropriate, BOARS may convene one or more subcommittees and identify subject matter specialists and partners or consultants from other California education segments (e.g., California State University, California Community Colleges) to assist in their study.

Full document at https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/council-chair-to-boars-charges-on-undergraduate-admissions.pdf.

Less than meets the eye

On Aug. 13, the state senate Appropriations Committee passed AB 713 which has as its goal the hiring by UC of undocumented students. The Regents originally were moving to allow such hiring but halted the effort after the UC general counsel opined that it would violate federal law. Note that when you read the actual provisions of AB 713, it still leaves the decision to the Regents. (There is no such exemption in AB 713 for CSU or the community colleges.) The bill still needs the approval of the full state senate and the governor's signature.

See the full text of the bill below:

Text of AB 713 - AB-713 Public postsecondary education: student employment

Article  3.8. Employment

66029. (a) The University of California, California State University, or California Community Colleges shall not disqualify a student from being hired for an employment position due to their failure to provide proof of federal work authorization, except in either of the following cases:

(1) Where that proof is required by federal law.

(2) Where that proof is required as a condition of a grant that funds the particular employment position for which the student has applied.

(b) The University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges shall treat the prohibition on hiring undocumented noncitizens in Section 1324a(a) of Title 8 of the United States Code as inapplicable because that provision does not apply to any branch of state government.

(c) To the extent student employment is considered a “benefit” for purposes of federal law, this statute shall constitute authorization to provide that benefit for purposes of Section 1621(d) of Title 8 of the United States Code.

(d) The University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges shall implement this article by January 6, 2027.

(e) This article shall apply to the University of California, unless it is found to be inapplicable to the university, then, consistent with Section 67400, this article shall apply to the university only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make it applicable.

SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB713.

State Audit of UC and CSU Sexual Harassment Cases

June 30, 2026

2025‑050

The Governor of California

President pro Tempore of the Senate

Speaker of the Assembly

State Capitol

Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:

As required by Education Code section 67382.1, my office conducted an audit of the efforts of the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) to address and prevent sexual harassment. In general, we determined that UC and CSU have improved their responses to sexual harassment but should take further action to protect their campus communities.

Our review included a selection of two campuses in each system—UC Irvine, UC Riverside, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and Sacramento State—and primarily focused on how these four campuses responded to reports that students or employees (respondents) had engaged in sexual harassment toward others (complainants). We reviewed 97 cases and found six with substantive issues. For example, in one case that a campus closed without taking formal action, it was unclear whether the campus had met with a complainant who was interested in pursuing a formal process and had requested a meeting. In another case, a complainant stated that she wanted the campus to investigate her report, but the campus appeared to have pressured her to pursue an alternative resolution agreement instead. We also observed inconsistencies in the discipline that campuses imposed on respondents following investigations.

Campuses could more consistently implement best practices to better prevent and address sexual harassment. For instance, the campuses closed several cases without taking formal action because complainants had not responded to email outreach, but the campuses did not document consideration of any other outreach methods, such as phone calls or text messages. Additionally, although investigators or hearing officers reached reasonable determinations in each investigation case we reviewed, some case reports contained analytical gaps or problematic language that may have reduced the involved parties’ confidence that the outcomes were fair.

The UC and CSU system offices oversee campuses’ efforts, and we make several recommendations to these offices to develop or update guidelines for their campuses, including to help improve campuses’ communication with complainants, ensure the quality of hearing officer reports, and increase consistency in disciplinary outcomes.

Respectfully submitted,

GRANT PARKS

California State Auditor

---

Source: https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2025-050/.

===

Full report at https://www.auditor.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/2025-050-Report-WP.pdf.

More on the need for a new Master Plan

As blog readers will know, the old Master Plan for Higher Education put together by UC President Clark Kerr and others, is rapidly eroding. We have argued that a new plan is needed so we have a roadmap of who should be doing what among the three segments of state higher ed: UC, CSU, and the community colleges. What we have now is ad hoc adjustments overseen by the legislature. There is no plan. We noted in a prior post that Regent Chair Anguiano seems to want to create one within the Regents. But it's hard to see how that could happen without some kind of participation of the community colleges, CSU, and the legislature.

One of the developments, given the absence of a plan, is pressure from community colleges to offer BA degrees, typically narrowly occupationally focused. A recent National Bureau of Economic Research study suggests that employers do value such degrees. Summary:

Community colleges are more financially, academically, and geographically accessible than four-year institutions. Yet despite most community college students intending to earn a bachelor’s degree, few successfully transfer and complete one. Community College Baccalaureate (CCB) programs have emerged as an alternative pathway, allowing community colleges to confer bachelor’s degrees directly. However, little is known about how employers value these credentials in the labor market. To address this question, we conduct the first resume audit study of CCB degrees, submitting fictitious applications to real job vacancies while experimentally varying applicants’ educational credentials, degree-granting institutions, and demographic signals. In this pilot study, we focus on the early childhood education (ECE) labor market, a rapidly growing CCB field characterized by labor shortages and increasing educational requirements. We find that employers view CCB degrees similarly to both traditional bachelor’s and associate degrees, with statistically indistinguishable interview-request rates across degree types. A text analysis of employer callback messages reveals little evidence that employers communicate differently with CCB applicants, while a net-price simulation suggests that sticker-price comparisons substantially overstate the affordability advantage of CCB programs. Together, these findings provide new evidence on the labor market value and affordability of CCB degrees and inform an ongoing large-scale audit study across additional fields and labor markets.

Full study at https://www.nber.org/papers/w35404.

A new Master Plan process would look at studies such as the one above and possibly commission others. And it would bring together interest groups, academics, and political leaders to hammer out a coherent approach. In other words, it would be formulated much as the old plan was.

Just so you know...

Source: https://www.ppic.org/publication/higher-education-funding-in-california/.

Another reminder of the dissipating Master Plan

UC President Clark Kerr hands
Master Plan to Gov. Pat Brown

From CalMatters: It soon could become much easier for California community colleges to create new bachelor’s degree programs. The state’s community colleges, which primarily offer certificates and two-year associate degrees, are permitted to create bachelor’s degrees that fill workforce needs, but existing law allows them to do so only if they don’t duplicate what’s offered at California’s four-year universities. Debate over what is and isn’t duplication has created an ongoing turf war between the state’s two largest higher education systems, with California State University campuses often objecting to new community college degrees, claiming duplication of their own programs. Amid those objections, final approvals of several degree offerings have been delayed for years.

Now, California lawmakers are weighing legislation to clarify — and significantly restrict — when the state’s four-year universities can protest new community college bachelor’s degree programs. Two separate bills, Senate Bill 960 and Assembly Bill 2694, would prohibit four-year campuses from bringing objections if they aren’t located in the same geographic area as the community college proposing the degree. Both bills are opposed by CSU...

Full story at https://edsource.org/2026/community-colleges-bachelor-degrees/760627.

As we have noted many times, the old Master Plan of 1960 was the product of a deliberative process, not ad hoc legislative efforts.

We got something (maybe)

As blog readers will know, UC has been pushing for two bond measures: one would provide research funding and the other would provide some money for student housing (along with other funding for housing more generally).

Both bonds would require legislative approval and then voter approval. And the housing bond in particular might or might not have included UC funding. But now it apparently does. As part of an $11 billion housing bond, there is this provision:

Three hundred fifty million dollars ($350,000,000) to be appropriated by the Legislature for new affordable student housing projects. This funding shall be split evenly among the University of California and the California State University. Funded student housing projects shall meet the terms specified in subdivision (f) of Section 17201 of the Education Code. For these projects, the University of California and California State University shall meet the accountability and reporting requirements specified in subdivisions (i) and (o) of Section 17201 of the Education Code.

Full text at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB417.

Let's not forget about Canvas

Remember when the various Canvas plans were hacked and many higher ed institutions, including UCLA, came to a halt?

EdSource has information on what it costs. A bigger issue is that the hacking of Canvas creates questions about dependence on that company, data security, etc.

...Last month, a data breach by hacker group ShinyHunters upended access to Canvas and led to service disruptions around the world at thousands of schools. California’s public colleges and universities were preparing for exams at the moment when Instructure was held ransom: pay up, or terabytes of private data, including student and staff records, would be leaked, the group threatened...

[State] Sen. Melissa Hurtado, a Bakersfield Democrat, has called for a legislative audit into Canvas. “The Canvas breach exposes the growing risks of concentrating massive amounts of student records, academic systems and institutional operations into a single platform,” she said.

Full story at https://edsource.org/2026/how-much-do-california-colleges-and-universities-spend-on-canvas/759415.

State Senate/Assembly Resolution on AI

The resolution below has been sent by the State Senate to the State Assembly for consideration on June 9:

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 82

Introduced by Senator Niello

May 15, 2025

Relative to artificial intelligence in public higher education.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SCR 82, as introduced, Niello. Public higher education: artificial intelligence usage.

This measure would encourage the President of the University of California, the Chancellor of the California State University, and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges to create a workgroup of faculty, staff, and administrators to review the use of artificial intelligence in higher education, and create a report and make public the strategies and best practices for artificial intelligence usage agreed upon by the workgroup.

WHEREAS, The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence presents unprecedented opportunities and challenges for both students and faculty in higher education; and

WHEREAS, The University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges are leading higher education institutions in California, the nation, and the world that play a pivotal role in shaping the academic landscape and must play an active role in fostering responsible artificial intelligence integration; and

WHEREAS, These three institutions work closely together to ensure academic success for students; and

WHEREAS, The collaboration between these segments is vital to the coordination of student education, services, and outcomes; and

WHEREAS, Understanding how to use artificial intelligence in academic assignments is crucial to creating an environment that values innovation and knowledge while upholding academic honesty and integrity; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, the Assembly thereof concurring, That the Legislature encourages the President of the University of California, theChancellor of the California State University, and the Chancellor for the California Community Colleges to create a workgroup of faculty, staff, and administrators to review the use of artificial intelligence in higher education; and be it further

Resolved, That the workgroup should discuss strategies and best practices that lead to the acceptable use of artificial intelligence in higher education while emphasizing academic honesty and ethical academic standards; and be it further

Resolved, That the workgroup should discuss strategies and best practices for acceptable use of artificial intelligence across the three segments of California public higher education; and be it further

Resolved, That the workgroup should discuss strategies and best practices for the use of artificial intelligence in academic studies, including, but not limited to, mitigating plagiarism and ethically using artificial intelligence in academic assignments; and be it further

Resolved, That the workgroup should discuss strategies and best practices for using artificial intelligence as it relates to providing student academic support; and be it further

Resolved, That the workgroup should discuss and strategize on ways to provide professional support to professors on using artificial intelligence in student and faculty work; and be it further

Resolved, That the workgroup should discuss and strategize on ways to provide professional support to professors on recognizing the use of artificial intelligence in student work, including reliable technologies for checking student work, and how to work with students to appropriately inform students when professors believe artificial intelligence was improperly used; and be it further

Resolved, That the workgroup should discuss best practices for responding to violations of artificial intelligence usage standards, with student participation in these discussions for relevant feedback; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature encourages the workgroup to collaborate with faculty, administrators, and students at the higher education segments, as well as individuals who work in higher education outside of California and experts in artificial intelligence; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature encourages the workgroup to collaborate with liaisons from the statewide associated student bodies of the three segments of California public higher education; and be it further

Resolved, That the Legislature encourages the workgroup to create a report and make public the strategies and best practices for artificial intelligence usage agreed upon by the workgroup; and be it further

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this resolution to chairs of the academic senates at the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, and to the author for appropriate distribution.

---

Source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SCR82.