Michelle Deutchman on Free Speech on Campuses and Beyond

Blog readers may recall that back when Janet Napolitano was UC president, she created the University of California National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement in response to controversies concerning controversial speakers on campus. The issue then mainly revolved around Berkeley. Post October 7, 2023, the issue developed on all campuses.

The director of the Center, Michelle Deutschman, appeared on C-SPAN recently to discuss recent events and the more general issue.

The program is available at:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?535667-5/michelle-deutchman-free-speech-campuses.

Watch the afternoon Regents meeting of Sept. 20, 2023

The afternoon session of the Regents on Wednesday, Sept. 20, 2023 consisted of three committee meetings: Governance, Compliance and Audit, and Public Engagement and Development.

The Governance meeting - open component - briefly approved some executive pay matters.

Public Engagement and Development had various topics. The most interesting was a presentation on the activities of the UC Free Speech Center which was created under former UC president Napolitano. This segment begins at around minute 11:30 at the appropriate link below and runs for about 40 minutes, followed by some Q&A.

The presentation on the general concept of free speech, particularly as it applies to government entities such as UC. Basically, the presentation came out against such concepts as broad anti-bias speech codes, heckler's vetoes, and similar developments. The presentation also went into the related, but not identical, concept of academic freedom. It was noted that this concept protected relevant speech in classrooms by instructors and suggested making it clear in external comment on controversial issues that what was being said was not an official view of the university. The presentation did not get into the issue of required DEI statements for candidates for hiring and promotions, a subject currently under litigation. 

At Compliance and Audit, the most interesting part dealt with compliance by faculty and staff of various training requirements concerning matters such as ethics, sexual harassment, and cybersecurity. Compliance rates overall on the broad topics were generally in the 83 to 94% range, but with variations by campus. Various Regents were upset that the numbers weren't higher and wanted penalties. The charts presented bifurcated the response rates by staff and supervisors/faculty, the latter being an amorphous division.

There was grumbling that harsher penalties were not imposed for those who didn't complete their trainings. And there was a demand to break out faculty from supervisors. It should be noted that when the Regents hear "faculty," they think of ladder faculty. The large army of other instructors, many of whom are part time and/or part year, does not come to mind. But getting people who may teach part time for a quarter or semester to undertake the various trainings may be an issue.

In any case, at no point did any Regents ask if the various trainings actually produce the desired behavioral results. What evidence do we have on that issue? Even where trainings are required by state law, it would be nice to have some evidence. Is behavior now more ethical? Is there less sexual harassment? Are computer systems more secure? (It might be noted that the big data breaches that have occurred in recent years seem to be the result of flawed system rather than of individual users.)

There was also a report pursuant to AB 481 which requires review of "military" type equipment by campus police. (Drones, for example, are considered to be "military.")

You can watch the various sessions of the afternoon of Sept. 20th at the links below:

Governance:

https://ia801601.us.archive.org/35/items/regents-compliance-and-audit-9-20-23pm/Regents%20Governance%209-20-2023pm.mp4

Public Engagement and Development:

https://ia601601.us.archive.org/35/items/regents-compliance-and-audit-9-20-23pm/Regents%20Public%20Engagement%20and%20Development%209-20-23pm.mp4

Compliance and Audit:

https://ia601601.us.archive.org/35/items/regents-compliance-and-audit-9-20-23pm/Regents%20Compliance%20and%20Audit%209-20-23pm.mp4

General website address:

https://archive.org/details/regents-compliance-and-audit-9-20-23pm

Can We Bear It?

Yet another objection to the UCLA/Big Ten Move. An article in the San Francisco Chronicle raises objections on environmental grounds, linked to increase airplane travel the move entails. Note that figuring out the impact on climate change is quite complicated and no numbers are mentioned in the article. At the very least, you would have to subtract the travel that won't occur from the new travel and try to figure out the marginal impact of each. UCLA could buy credits to offset the impact, whatever it supposedly was.

In any case, now that the issue has been raised, it may well pop up at the upcoming Regents meetings, perhaps in public comments if not in the actual discussion.

USC, UCLA moving to Big Ten creates big problem no one is talking about

By Ann Killion, 9-6-22

...So many things are troubling about the Southern California schools’ plan to become part of the Big Ten in 2024. Tradition is just one concern, one that causes heartache for those of us (I’m a UCLA alum) who cherish the symmetry and rivalries of our California teams. Even more troubling: sacrificing all sports on the altar of football profits. The devaluing of the storied Olympic sports at each university. The toll the extra travel will take on athletes whose sports have multiple games per week. The diminishing of Pac-12 powerhouses for women’s sports like basketball, softball and soccer. And here’s another disconcerting issue: the environmental consequences of such a move. More travel means a larger carbon footprint and the devouring of more resources.

I’m not the only one who thinks it is strange that this issue is not being mentioned. “This hasn’t received the attention it deserves,” said Cal professor of energy Daniel Kammen, the founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. “I have not heard this as part of the debate.”

...Both USC and UCLA have stated goals of being carbon-neutral by 2025. This decision would seem to fly in the face of such targets. USC is a private university and, as such, is not accountable to government goals or mandates. But UCLA is a public university and governed by the UC Board of Regents. The University of California system announced a Carbon Neutrality Initiative in 2013, under former President Janet Napolitano. “UC, as a whole, is committed to the 2025 carbon-neutrality goal, which is a real challenge when you’re extending flight miles,” Kammen said. “This decision works exactly against the sustainability standards that UCLA is committed to.” ...

Full story at https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/annkillion/article/USC-UCLA-moving-to-Big-Ten-creates-a-big-problem-17423221.php.

Despite the environmental issue, as we have noted in prior postings on this blog, it's hard to see the Regents actually reversing the UCLA decision. Of course, USC is beyond their reach. Moreover, pursuant to existing Regents' policy, Chancellor Block - in effect acting as their authorized agent - made a deal. While the Regents could order him not to proceed, a lawsuit would probably follow, one which the Regents would likely lose.

===

You can hear the text above at the link below:

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/environment%20big%2010.mp3

Whatever happened to...

...Janet Napolitano? There was a lot of speculation when she stepped down as UC prez about some appointment in the Biden administration or maybe some run for elective office. So far, nothing like that has happened.

However, there is this:

From NBC 4: Janet Napolitano, former secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, governor of Arizona and president of the UC system, was elected to the RAND Corp. Board of Trustees, the Santa Monica-based think tank announced Monday...

"As a former governor — the first to join RAND's Board of Trustees — Janet will bring enormous expertise on issues where the states play a central role and where federal-state relations are key," Rich said.

Full story at https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/former-uc-president-janet-napolitano-named-to-rand-board/2616937/.

Free Speech Center Report

Former UC president Janet Napolitano created a UC free speech center during her term, partly in response to protests and complaints about various speakers on campus. With a new UC president, the fate of the center was unclear. However, President Drake has continued it and, in fact, is on the board of the center with Napolitano. The center has now issued its annual report, available at:

https://freespeechcenter.universityofcalifornia.edu/2020-annual-report/

Listen to the Regent Afternoon Session of July 30, 2020

Note: Our photo for Regents sessions often show someone listening to an old radio or other sound device. As it happened, Chancellor Block was one of the speakers at the budget discussion (see below) and he spoke with a background containing three old radios. (The middle one is a Zenith Transoceanic shortwave radio from the 1950s. The one on the left looks like something from the 1960s. The one on the left seems to be from the 1920s.) It appeared that the wall of books and radios was a "green screen" background, i.e., not what was really behind the chancellor. (You can put any background you like on a Zoom session if you have a green screen behind you or if you have a computer with sufficient power so that it can insert a background without use of a green screen. Some other presenters and participants also used green screen backgrounds.)

The full board discussed the UC budget outlook. Yours truly notes that the figures were presented in a way that tended to minimize or obscure the magnitude of the possible cuts if Congress does not provide sufficient additional funds. Chair Pérez was anxious to note that the budget as ultimately signed by the governor in late June was better for UC than in the May Revise. However, absent additional federal funding, there are significant cuts which should not be downplayed. To see them, go to our blog post on the subject which is based on actual figures from the enacted budget and compares the current fiscal  year with last year:

http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-uc-budget-what-is-projected.html

Nathan Brostrom indicated that there was contingent planning going on in case the coronavirus crisis caused continued revenue losses beyond this year. He mentioned "progressive" pay cuts (bigger percentage cuts at higher pay levels), etc., as possible responses. There might be more discussion at the September meeting of the Regents when more will be known about the possible congressional funding. Whether the Academic Senate is involved in such contingency planning was not stated.

When in came to use of reserves at the campus level, Regent Makarechian indicated that campus reserves should be shared systemwide so that cuts at one campus would not be more severe than at others. Chair Pérez endorsed that idea. Yours truly must note that if such a policy were followed, it would diminish the incentive at the campus level to put aside reserves for the next crisis, whenever that occurs. In effect, reserve accumulation would have to be done at the systemwide level. Yet recent history suggests that reserve accumulation at the systemwide level becomes a target of the state auditor. In short, some attention to the long-term consequences of a decision to redistribute campus reserves needs to be paid.

We posted on Saturday about the approval by the full board of the governance change that - over the objection of the Senate - tended to diminish the role of the faculty in chancellor selection.* As we noted on Saturday, this action does not bode well for shared governance. If you didn't see the Saturday post, scroll down for the link and the video response of the faculty representative. The full board session ended with a tribute to outgoing UC president Napolitano and a quote from recently-deceased congressman John Lewis by Chair Pérez. 

At Academic and Student Affairs, there was reference to the George Floyd killing in Minneapolis and possible repeal of Proposition 209. A planned pharmacy program at Irvine was discussed, including diversity of the planned program's students. There was later discussion of senior management, staff, and student diversity.

You can hear the full board and the Academic and Student Affairs sessions at:

or direct to:

Full board: https://archive.org/details/regents-academic-students-affairs-7-30-20/Regents+7-30-20pm.WMA

and

Academic and Student Affairs: https://archive.org/details/regents-academic-students-affairs-7-30-20/Regents+Academic+%26+Students+Affairs+7-30-20.mp3

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

*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2020/08/severe-and-deep-disappointment-in.html 

We repeat the video excerpt embedded on this blog on Saturday:

or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bbsF9WaPx8

Online Spring

Outgoing UC president Janet Napolitano was interviewed on Boston radio station WBUR, mainly on the politics, events in Portland, and other topics. She indicated planning is going on for online education in the "spring" due to the coronavirus crisis. (The interviewer assumed two semesters - fall and spring - although most of the campuses have three quarters.) See below:

On whether the University of California system will be fully online for the 2021 spring semester in addition to the fall semester

“We sincerely hope not. But we're planning through that scenario. And unless there is a vaccine, you know, it is a good possibility that the kind of remote or online learning that we will be using for the beginning of the fall will continue into the spring. It really depends on what the situation is and how we can safely reopen the campuses.”

Full interview at https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/07/24/janet-napolitano-federal-agents

Fading Out

UC, UBC announce University Climate Change Coalition (UC3) leadership transition

UC Office of the President
Monday, June 22, 2020

University of California President Janet Napolitano and University of British Columbia President Santa J. Ono today (June 22) announced a transition in leadership of the University Climate Change Coalition (UC3), a network of 22 leading North American research universities working together to accelerate local and regional climate action. Effective June 30, Ono will assume the role of UC3 lead from Napolitano as she prepares to step down from the presidency of UC later this summer. Napolitano spearheaded the formation and launch of UC3 in February 2018, which is now a signature program of Second Nature.

...“President Ono and the University of British Columbia have been leaders within UC3 since its formation, so this is a natural transition that will build on the strong foundation we have established,” said Napolitano. “I am confident that President Ono’s leadership will take the coalition to new heights as research universities continue to pursue urgent climate research and solutions that will help secure a sustainable future for our communities.”...

Full news release at:
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-ubc-announce-university-climate-change-coalition-uc3-leadership-transition

So far, no reports of who Napolitano's successor will be as UC prez. There may not be an unveiling of the nominee until the next Regents meeting in late July.

Interview With the UC Prez

California Today blog of NY Times,
June 11, 2020

A Conversation With Janet Napolitano: The University of California’s president talks about her tenure and the pandemic.

Janet Napolitano has been a federal prosecutor, Arizona governor, Homeland Security secretary and pandemic point person (the H1N1 flu in 2009). Since 2013, she has been the University of California’s president.

Now 62, she will step down Aug. 1 to teach at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley.

This week, she spoke to my colleague Shawn Hubler, from her dining room table in Oakland.

Here’s their conversation, edited and condensed:

So, pandemic, looming recession, nationwide protests — some timing.

I did offer to stay longer. But they were pretty far along in the search process. I think they’re getting pretty close to announcing my successor.

Really? Who will it be?

I have no idea.

Well, what should the next U.C. president bring, beyond the basics?

This is a big, important, complex institution. It’s now got over 285,000 students and a quarter of a million employees. We’re actually the third largest employer in California. I think the U.C. needs a strong leader who can balance centralized leadership with the desire of campuses to act independently. Sort of like the federal government and the states.

Post-coronavirus, what do your instincts tell you about U.C.’s future?

I think more students will have more of a hybrid education — in-person, high-touch, with professors there with them in the classroom, but also more available online.

How does that differ from, say, the Cal State system, which is going almost entirely online this fall?

Cal State’s presumption will be that everything is online, and you have to go through a complex process to have an exception. I think the U.C. will be much less regimented. The campuses will have more in-person offerings and will be repopulating the dorms at least to some degree.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown, with whom you clashed on spending, thinks the U.C. should completely rethink its business model. Do you agree?

No! He was always looking for a silver bullet on how to reduce the U.C. budget. For a long time, it was the massive open online courses, which turned out not to be successful. I think a university needs a university.

What should universities do to address the broad social unrest we’re seeing?

First, we have to acknowledge the anger that George Floyd’s murder evokes and recognize that it is not a one-off but a symptom of a much more deep-rooted, almost structural flaw in our country. We have never solved the issues involved in being a multiracial democracy.

Police and criminal justice rise to the top. But we also need to fix education, health and housing disparities. And universities need to fix their own houses with more diversity in hiring, promotion and graduate programs. And then put some minds to work on public policies.

Should California repeal Proposition 209 and bring affirmative action back into university admissions?

The Board of Regents hasn’t yet taken a position. My personal view is that if we are endeavoring to conduct holistic admissions, then leaving out any consideration of a person’s race seems to be a real gap.

Then there’s the pandemic, which for kids, seems to be dismantling some of the most important aspects of college.

I totally agree. But I also think students should try to stay in school and make progress toward their degree. While college won’t be normal, the normal reasons to take a gap year don’t exist either. What are you going to do? Sit home and bother your parents? No! Take some courses. Get on with it.

What mistakes did you make in your time at U.C.?

The most serious downer had to do with the audit of the office of the president in 2017 [which accused her of hiding budget reserves and suppressing internal criticism, which she disputed]. I apologized but we certainly could have handled that differently.

You were in treatment for breast cancer then. How’s your health now?

I’m all clear, thank you. But you know, no other institution of higher education does what the University of California does at the level and scale we do it. I worry about whether the people and their elected leaders in Sacramento really understand this terrific asset they have.

What do you think your legacy will be at U.C.?

Growth. Growth in undergraduate enrollment, in minority student enrollment, in transfer students. Applications are up, graduation rates are up — four-year graduation rate went from 63 percent when I started to 70 percent and the six-year rate is now 85 percent.

And I think we’ll be known for taking on big challenges. Having the goal of being carbon neutral by 2025. Being the first university in the country to sue the administration to oppose the repeal of DACA. Taking a leadership role on issues involving sexual harassment and sexual violence.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/11/us/university-california-schools-napolitano.html

No SAT-ACT

We'll review the Regents meeting of earlier today once we have a chance to process the recordings. As the headline suggests, the Regents did not adopt the recommendation of the Academic Senate committee set up to examine the testing issue. But here is the initial news on the SAT-ACT issue:

From Politico: University of California regents voted Thursday to stop requiring high school students to submit an SAT or ACT score for admission, the biggest blow yet to the traditional standardized tests as leaders of the elite public system attempt to address fairness concerns. UC’s new policy, proposed by system President Janet Napolitano, calls for the SAT and ACT to be suspended through 2024 as the university attempts to develop its own testing standard. The tests will be completely eliminated in 2025, regardless of whether a new or modified UC-specific standard has been approved for use.

Prospective students will have the option of submitting standardized test scores through 2022, keeping intact a strategy recently implemented by universities across the nation as the coronavirus pandemic has hindered the ability of many students to take the tests. Beginning in 2023, the SAT and ACT will have no impact on the admissions process, though students could still submit scores to determine eligibility for certain scholarships and post-enrollment class placement...

Full story at https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/05/21/university-of-california-eliminates-sat-act-requirement-1285435

NOTE: The item above is typical of the initial reporting of the Regents' decision. However, it fails to reflect considerable debate and disagreement within the Regents. There is always great reluctance of Regents to reverse or even modify a major recommendation of the UC president and so they eventually endorsed the Napolitano proposal. However, it was difficult to get away from the fact that the Academic Senate's official report on SAT-ACT concluded that in the way these tests were used at UC, the result was to increase diversity.

Freeze

From an email circulated this afternoon:

LETTER TO THE UC COMMUNITY

Dear Colleagues:

As we enter a new phase of this pandemic and an eventual gradual return to in-person operations, I want to thank everyone for everything you are doing to maintain our core mission and work through the countless challenges.

I am writing to update you on several key decisions the Chancellors and I have agreed to which are difficult, but necessary in order to respond to the significant financial impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on UC and the ongoing budgetary uncertainties we face.

After much consultation with Chancellors, we are instituting the following for the 2020-21 fiscal year:

• a systemwide freeze on salaries for policy-covered staff employees;

• a systemwide freeze on salary scales for policy-covered, non-student academic appointees. To ensure a stable faculty pipeline and to maintain our teaching and research enterprise, we will continue the regular academic peer-review merit advancement program;

• a voluntary pay cut of 10 percent for current Chancellors and myself.

As we continue to address the current and anticipated shortfalls in our funding, we are also taking the following actions:

• Developing budget scenarios for locations and UCOP that anticipate budget cuts for the coming 2020-21 fiscal year. Each UC location faces unique circumstances which will require different budgetary strategies and actions, so cuts will not necessarily be uniform across the system;

• Initiating discussions with our union leaders to be sure they understand the current reality of our financial circumstances;

• Continuing to look for ways to reduce expenses such as eliminating non-essential travel and renegotiating service agreements.

Like many other organizations, UC is facing significant financial impacts as a result of the pandemic. From mid-March through April alone, we estimate that systemwide financial losses totaled nearly $1.2 billion, and we anticipate these losses will continue to climb in the months ahead. Needless to say, this significant loss of revenue is having an enormous negative effect on our budgets. Additionally, Governor Newsom last week announced a revised State budget for 2020-21 that includes a 10 percent funding reduction for UC of $372 million.

We continue to work closely with the State of California and the federal government to secure any and all additional funding available to help address the shortfalls. Much of this funding is designated for student financial aid, and while we are grateful for the funding, we do not anticipate full reimbursement for our losses.

We are a strong organization and will work over time to address our losses and recover. The present realities and ongoing uncertainties, however, require us to take actions in order to adjust to current circumstances, resume our in-person research and teaching activities in a safe and gradual way, and help protect employees’ jobs. We will also need to continue to closely monitor our finances, and consider additional actions as appropriate.

I know some of this news is unsettling, during an already difficult time. I want to thank you for your continued commitment to the University and the people we serve. Though we have many difficult challenges ahead, UC is resilient and we will get through this together.

Yours very truly,

Janet Napolitano President

UC General Fund Budget Sliced by an Eighth Absent Federal Funds

The governor and Dept. of Finance like to distinguish between ongoing state general fund financing of UC versus one-time. As blog readers will know, yours truly thinks the distinction is arbitrary. In his January budget, the governor proposed to give UC just under $4 billion next year, compared to a little over $3.9 billion this year, a 1.5% nominal increase year-over-year. In the May Revision just announced, UC loses all increments to its budget that were proposed in January and is proposed to receive only about $3.4 billion, a cut of 12.6%, unless federal funding as currently being proposed by Democrats in Congress is enacted.*

If federal funding currently proposed by the Democrats were to be enacted, $376.4 million of the cut would be restored. (The budget proposal has a "trigger" that would automatically add federal funding to the proposed amounts.) The overall nominal cut would then be reduced to 3.1%, year-over-year. It is certainly not impossible that Congress will ultimately enact something, although possibly less than the current proposal. If such an enactment were to occur before the deadline for the legislature to pass a budget in mid-June, presumably whatever federal funds there were would be added and the net cut would fall somewhere between 3.1% and 12.6%.

Note finally that the tuition part of the UC core educational budget - not included in the figures just cited - will depend on enrollment next year including the out-of-state and international enrollment levels which provide extra revenue. There is obviously uncertainty about enrollment, particularly of the out-of-state and international students, given current circumstances about what will be provided in the fall in terms of online vs. in-person instruction.

In response to the governor's May Revise, UC president Napolitano has released the following statement:

UC President Napolitano statement on May revision to Gov. Newsom’s budget

May 14, 2020

The University of California recognizes the unprecedented challenges California is facing in the wake of COVID-19 and regrets that Gov. Newsom was put into a position to steeply reduce the University’s budget in response to the State’s dramatically diminished revenues. Regardless, UC stands with the governor and the legislature to help lift the State out of this economic crisis.

Source: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news
-------
*Total funding this year was estimated in January to be $3,938.2 million. For next year, its budget was to be $3,998.0 million, a 1.5% increment. The May Revise removes all increments and subtracts a total of $376 million, leaving $3,440.5 million, a 12.6% reduction. Sources: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2020-21/pdf/BudgetSummary/HigherEducation.pdf (p. 88) and http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf (pp.50-51).

-------
UPDATE: The posting above was made based on the information in the sources listed above which were the only budget documents initially released after the governor spoke. Since that time, the Dept. of Finance has released still more detailed budget information on UC: 
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/budget/2020-21MR/#/Department/6440. According to that document, the cut in the UC budget was in fact more severe than what was listed in the descriptive analysis in the initial release. It puts the cut at 15.7% relative to what was proposed in January for 2020-21 and 14.4% relative to the current year. (Total now = $3,369.5 million.) So, the nominal cut relative to the current year is about one seventh rather than one eighth.

UC Prez Wants to Dump SAT/ACT

From an item for the upcoming Regents meeting:

RECOMMENDATION

The President of the University recommends the following for approval by the Board:

1. The University of California will suspend the current standardized test (ACT/SAT) requirement for undergraduate admissions until 2024.

a. For fall 2021 and 2022 applicants, campuses will have the option to use ACT/SAT test scores in selection consideration if students choose to submit them.

b. Beginning with fall 2023 applicants and ending with fall 2024 applicants, campuses will not consider test scores for admissions selection at all, and will practice test-blind admissions selection. This recommendation applies to students enrolled in California public and independent high schools.

c. During the full period of suspension, from 2021-2024, students will have the option to submit an ACT/SAT score for use in calculating eligibility for the UC statewide admissions guarantee, and for use in scholarship consideration and post-enrollment course placement.

d. The University of California will eliminate altogether the SAT Essay/ACT Writing Test as a requirement for UC undergraduate admissions, and these scores will not be used at all effective for fall 2021 admissions.

2. Starting in summer 2020 and ending by January 2021, UC will undertake a process to identify or create a new test that aligns with the content UC expects students should have mastered to demonstrate college readiness for California freshmen.

3. If UC is unable to either modify or create a test that meets these criteria and can be available for applicants for fall 2025, UC will eliminate altogether the use of the ACT/SAT for freshman admissions.

4. The University will consult with K-12 educators, test experts, the California State University, and UC faculty to evaluate how best to construct a test better suited for the needs of UC (and possibly CSU).

a. The new test will be implemented on an accelerated timeline so that it is in place for fall 2025 applicants.

b. The University will create a public online dashboard for tracking the progress of this process, and will provide regular updates to the Regents.

5. The President of the University will request that the Academic Senate review UC’s current admissions guarantees, including the statewide eligibility pathway and Eligibility in the Local Context (ELC).

6. The President will request that the Academic Senate conduct additional analysis and review of factors contributing to disproportionate representation of California’s diverse high school student population, including review of A-G course access, student outreach, recruitment, and support services.

7. The President will request that the Academic Senate work with the administration to determine the appropriate approach for out-of-state and international students beginning in 2025.

Source: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/may20/b4.pdf

Note: Items b and c above - possibly due to unclear language - appear to be in partial contradiction. Item b says there will be no consideration of test scores at all in 2023 and 2024. Item c says test scores can be used to demonstate eligibility. Subsequent language in the document does not clear up this matter.

Preliminary Regents Agenda

Below is the preliminary agenda for the May 19-21 regents meeting  As we have noted in earlier posts, the Regents meeting will follow the governor's May Revise budget proposal this coming Thursday, May 14. Some highlights are marked below:

Regents Meeting: May 19-21, 2020, Agenda

Tuesday, May 19, 2020

11:30 am Finance and Capital Strategies Committee (open session - includes public comment session)
Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of March 18, 2020

• F1 Action: Consent Agenda:

A. Adoption of Endowment Administration Cost Recovery Rate
B. Adoption of Expenditure Rate for the General Endowment Pool
C. Amendments to the 2019-20 and 2020-21 Budget for State
Capital Improvements
D. Approval of Design Following Action Pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, Inpatient Rehabilitation
Hospital, Davis Health Campus

• F2 Action: Partial Preliminary Plans Funding, Irvine Campus Medical Complex, Irvine Campus
• F3 Action: Preliminary Plans and Working Drawings Funding and Scope, Mission Bay East Campus Phase 2 (Block 34) Parking Garage, San Francisco Campus
• F4 Action: Preliminary Plans Funding, Mission Bay East Campus Phase 2 (Block 34) Clinical Building, San Francisco Campus
• F5 Action: Preliminary Plans Funding, Integrated Center for Design and Construction at Parnassus Heights, San Francisco Campus
• F6 Action: Partial Preliminary Plans Funding, the New Hospital at UCSF Helen Diller Medical Center at Parnassus Heights, San Francisco Campus

2:30 pm Investments Committee (open session)

• Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of January 21, 2020
• I-1 Discussion: Update on University of California Investments Products – Retirement, Endowment and Working Capital

Note: This session is the first in which the financial impact of the coronavirus crisis and recession will really be aired at a Regents meeting. The issue was largely avoided at the prior meeting.

4:30 pm Special Committee on Basic Needs (open session)
Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of March 17, 2020
S1 Discussion: Supporting Students’ Basic Needs During COVID-19
S2 Discussion: Special Committee on Basic Needs Report Draft Recommendations

===
Wednesday, May 20, 2020

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Agenda – Closed Session
G1X Discussion: Appointment of and Compensation for a Chancellor, Merced
Campus, Closed Session Statute Citation: Personnel Matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]
Note: Presumably, the name of the new chancellor of UC-Merced will be unveiled at one of the two following full board meetings.

FULL BOARD

Time: At the conclusion of the closed session Governance Committee meeting

• Agenda – Open Session
• Public Comment Period
• Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of March 18, 2020
• Remarks of the Chair of the Board
• Remarks of the President of the University

HEALTH SERVICES COMMITTEE
Time: 10:00 a.m.

• Agenda – Open Session
• H1 Discussion: Update of COVID-19 Impact on the University of California: UC Health Issues

Note: At the prior off-cycle meeting of this committee, the financial impact wasn't much discussed. Presumably, it will have to come up this time.

ACADEMIC AND STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Time: At the conclusion of the previous meeting

• Agenda – Open Session
• Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of March 18, 2020
• A1 Discussion: Update of COVID-19 Impact on the University of California: Academic and Student Issues

FINANCE AND CAPITAL STRATEGIES COMMITTEE
Time: At the conclusion of the previous meeting
Agenda – Open Session

• F7 Discussion: Projected COVID-19 Impacts on 2019-20 and 2020-21 Revenue

Note: At the prior Regents meeting, only one Regent pushed for any kind of discussion of this matter. It can't be avoided this time.

FULL BOARD
Time: At the conclusion of previous meeting

• Agenda – Open Session
• B2 Action: Principles for Responsible Operation of University Locations in Light of COVID-19 Pandemic

FINANCE AND CAPITAL STRATEGIES COMMITTEE (Continued)
Date: May 20, 2020
Time: 1:00 p. m.
Agenda – Open Session

• F8 Action: Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget for the University of California Office of the President
• F9 Action: Amendment of the University of California Retirement Savings Program Plans to Provide for Relief Distributions and Loan Provisions as Permitted Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act

Note: We posted earlier this past week about the need for Regental action to approve certain special features allowed under the CARES Act.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE (Continued)
Time: 2:00 p.m.
Agenda – Open Session

• Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of March 18, 2020
• G2 Action: Amendment of Regents Policy 1112 – Review of Allegations of Board Member Misconduct

Note: G2 is likely the result of past allegations of sexual misconduct of a board member who subsequently resigned.

• G3 Action: Amendment of Bylaw 21.7 and Regents Policy 1202 – Policy on Appointment of Student Regent

Agenda – Closed Session

• Action: Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of March 18, 2020
• G4X Discussion: Collective Bargaining Matters, Closed Session Statute Citation: Collective bargaining matters [Government Code §3596(d)]

Note: The pledge of the UC prez to avoid layoffs expires on June 30. Since this is a closed session, we will not know what the discussion will be. But it's hard to imagine the layoff issue won't be part of the agenda.

COMPLIANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of March 18, 2020

• C1X Discussion: State Audit of Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation, Closed Session Statute Citation: Response to draft State audit report [Government Code §11126.2]
• C2X Discussion: Update on the Pension Administration Project, Closed Session Statute Citations: Personnel Matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]; Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]

Note: We have noted this item in the past. What is the "Pension Administration Project" and why is it under litigation?** (We have been assured it doesn't have anything to do with pension benefits.)

• C3X Discussion: Foreign Influence Investigations Across the System, Closed Session Statute Citations: Personnel Matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]; Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]

Note: C3X likely involves a potentially contentious matter involving relations with China.

• There follows a long list of legal cases in various stages. One of note is:

REQUA v. REGENTS – Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Granted – Impairment of Implied Contract for Retiree Health Benefits – Office of the President

This is the case that came out of Lawrence Livermore that provided monetary compensation for loss of UC retiree health due to a management change at that lab. While it might have established some sort of vested right to retiree health insurance, the monetary settlement averted such an outcome.***

Thursday, May 21, 2020

FULL BOARD

• Agenda – Open Session
• Public Comment Period
• Remarks from Student Associations
• B3 Discussion: Standardized College Entrance Exams: Current Uses and Academic Perspectives on Use
• B4 Action: College Entrance Exam Use in University of California Undergraduate Admissions

Note: Apart from the budget, Items B3 and B4 are the hot topics of this meeting involving the use of the SAT and ACT.

Committee Reports Including Approvals of Recommendations from Committees:
Academic and Student Affairs Committee
Finance and Capital Strategies Committee
Health Services Committee (from the April 15, 2020 meeting)
Governance Committee
Investments Committee
Special Committee on Basic Needs
Special Committee on Nominations

Closed session of the full board follows the open session.
==================
Source: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/meetings/agendas/may20.html
==================
*http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2020/05/regents-must-approve-certain.html

**http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-regents-will-be-meeting-january-21.html

***http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2020/04/requalawrence-livermore-case-settlement.html and earlier posts. Search for "Requa" in the search engine linked to this blog.

A Glimpse of the World to Come

FAT CHANCE!

Yours truly has it on "high authority" that an announcement of the results of the search for a new UC president will not occur at the upcoming May Regents meeting but is more likely for the July meeting. We'll see about that.

As for other glimpses of the future, our current UC prez sent a letter to the governor and legislative leaders about the loss of revenue and added expenses of UC due to the coronavirus crisis. You can find, read, and download the letter here:

https://archive.org/stream/napolitano-to-uc-unions-4-27-2020/Napolitano%20to%20governor%20et%20al%204-15-2020#mode/2up

She also wrote to the various UC unions with Bad News at the end of April:

https://archive.org/stream/napolitano-to-uc-unions-4-27-2020/Napolitano%20to%20UC%20unions%204-27-2020#mode/2up

And, in a public webinar excerpted on a Bay Area radio station, she more or less confirmed that the likely reopening of the campuses will be along the lines of the "hybrid" model, i.e., some courses online and some in person, more limited dorms, etc. Again, "high authority" suggests that decisions will be made sometime in June. Below is a screengrab of the interview:

or direct to https://kcbsradio.radio.com/media/audio-channel/uc-experience-greatly-reduced-if-campuses-reopen-this-fall

How bad is it? Bad, really bad - Part 8

From the Teresa Watanabe at the LA Times: The University of California was hit with $558 million in unanticipated costs in March alone due to the coronavirus, a staggering sum as students canceled housing and dining contracts, medical centers paused elective surgeries and campus costs soared for online learning. UC President Janet Napolitano detailed the grim financial picture in a letter Wednesday to Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders and asked them for more funding to help cover the unprecedented costs.

She noted that the public research university system was incurring added expenses and revenue losses in multiple areas, as health centers treated high-cost COVID-19 patients, researchers worked on potential cures and campuses sent most students home. UC also has pledged to avoid layoffs of most employees.

“As the world’s largest public research university system, UC is confronting many of the worst impacts of the virus all at once,” she wrote. More funding, she added, would “help UC provide students the education they were promised, treat our employees with fairness and provide our communities with compassionate care.”...

H.D. Palmer, a Department of Finance spokesman, said all requests for additional funding would be reviewed but that Newsom is preparing a May revision that is essentially flat and “could go further than that” — meaning budget cuts. The state could face a deficit of as much as $35 billion in the near future, legislative analyst Gabriel Petek said Thursday.

The impact on UC campuses could be particularly dire. Their unanticipated costs reached about $310 million in March — amounting to about 40% of $775 million monthly revenue in a system with an annual $9.3-billion core budget, according to Christopher Newfield, a UC Santa Barbara professor and systemwide budget expert. 

Without additional funding, students may face larger class sizes, reduced course offerings, more difficulty getting into needed classes and potentially higher tuition, said Michael Meranze, a UCLA historian who has long studied UC finances. A generation of scholars could be sidelined if UC lacks the funds to recruit them, jeopardizing the system’s renowned innovation and intellectual leadership, he said...

Full story at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-16/uc-reeling-under-staggering-coronavirus-costs-the-worst-impacts-all-at-once

“If they are not reimbursed, the losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic will be disastrous for the UC system,” Meranze said.

Caroline Siegel-Singh, a UC San Diego student leader, said hiring freezes, furloughs or layoffs in coming months would reduce staff for needed student services, such as financial aid assistance and mental health counseling.

“If campuses have to eat these cuts, the unfortunate reality is that it will lead to a serious degradation of the student experience at the university,” she said.

Varsha Sarveshwar, UC Student Assn. president, said that campuses “did the right thing” in allowing students to leave, reimbursing their housing and meal plan payments and purchasing laptops and Wi-Fi for those who needed them. She said UC should not be expected to pay the costs of that support alone.

Napolitano’s letter provided the first detailed look at the extraordinary financial impact of the pandemic on the 10-campus UC system, which educates 285,000 students and employs 227,000 faculty, researchers and staff. The recently enacted federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, known as CARES, will provide an estimated $437 million in aid to UC campuses and medical centers, Napolitano said, but that would not fully cover even a month of the extra costs...

According to Napolitano, unanticipated new costs and revenue losses include:

• $310 million for UC campuses for canceled housing and dining contracts, facility cleaning costs and transitioning to remote instruction. An expected $260 million in federal relief won’t cover the costs, Napolitano said.
• $248 million for UC’s health system, which includes $170 million in losses from cancellation of elective procedures. The system’s six academic health centers have treated more than 1,000 patients for COVID-19. But costs to prepare and outfit entire facilities for critical care initially cost between $1 million and $10 million per patient in the early weeks. The health centers expect to receive about $177 million in funding from the Department of Health and Human Services.
• Greater demand for financial aid as massive job losses have upended family economic stability. But $130 million in federal emergency financial aid grants that UC expects to receive should cover the additional needs for the next several academic terms, Napolitano wrote.

Full story at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-16/uc-reeling-under-staggering-coronavirus-costs-the-worst-impacts-all-at-once

NOTE: As of 7 am this morning, yours truly was unable to locate a copy of the letter to the governor described above on the UC or UCOP websites.

TV Interview

Excerpts:

Napolitano: Our medical centers have been running full-bore to deal with Covid-19.They’re dealing with all the patients that are presenting themselves. They’re preparing for the surge that we expect to come, making sure that we have enough masks and personal protective equipment and ventilators to deal with those patients. And then, in addition, we have lots of research underway. All of our hospitals now have their own tests that they’re able to administer, analyzing different treatment modalities and working on a potential vaccine. We have over 300 research projects underway at the university...

Credit to our faculty. They turned on a dime and quickly turned from in-classroom instruction to online and remote learning. Many of our campuses and classes have transferred to being either pass/no pass or letter grade optional. The campuses have emptied out. The students have left the dorms and dining facilities; we’ve given refunds for those. We’ve loosened up some of our admissions requirements for incoming students, so that we will count more classes they take this semester pass/no pass, both for high school seniors and juniors and also for transfer students, and we have suspended use of the SAT for 2020 and 2021. So we’ve been focused both on how we continue instructing students so they can continue progress toward their degrees to making sure the university is open, accessible to new students who wish to attend...

Napolitano on Coronavirus Research Funding

Federal Research Is the Key to Solving the COVID-19 Crisis

Janet Napolitano and Carrie L. Byington, April 7, 2020,
Inside Higher Ed

The COVID-19 pandemic may prove to be one of the most profound global crises of our time. Every day seems to bring another unprecedented development, including mass closures of educational institutions and businesses, city- and statewide orders requiring millions of people to stay in their homes, and the disruption of financial markets. Last week, more than six million Americans applied for unemployment, while the number of U.S. infections surpassed those of all other countries in the world.

In the midst of such intense upheaval, it can be difficult to maintain confidence in our collective ability to respond, to prevent widespread infection and deaths among our most vulnerable populations, to stabilize our economy, and to return our lives to normalcy. But as unnerving as this moment is, we do have optimism that a clear path forward for the U.S. and the world can be identified. Our nation’s public research universities are one resource that can help light the way. Today, thousands of doctors, researchers, physician scientists, students and trainees at academic institutions across the United States are working around the clock to develop and test innovative ways to prevent infection, to treat patients who develop COVID-19 and to end the pandemic.

Researchers across the University of California and our associated health centers are now engaged in more than 300 research initiatives designed to combat COVID-19. Five of our health centers are pursuing clinical trials testing the safety and efficacy of a range of drugs approved for other conditions that may be effective for COVID-19. A new public-private consortium that includes UC San Diego and the UC-affiliated Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories is using supercomputers to answer questions about the virus in hours or days, rather than weeks or months. A team of researchers at UC Riverside joined with partners to map a key protein that may aid in the development of a COVID-19 vaccine. Other UC experts are studying everything from coronavirus mutations, infection prevention and community mobilization to the regulatory, policy and economic implications of this virus.

It’s no coincidence that these insights are all emerging from our nation’s public research universities and academic health centers, where the world’s greatest minds join together to develop solutions to our most daunting challenges. In addition to conducting groundbreaking medical research, many public universities also provide top-notch front-line medical care to patients of all income levels. In a crisis such as the one we face today, academic medical centers and the public-service mission of these institutions stand apart by doggedly pursuing medical insights and solutions regardless of the potential for profit.

We know this research is vital to our country’s health and our ability to recover and rebuild after this crisis. But the reality is that universities can only conduct this research if they have sufficient federal support. At the University of California -- like many other public universities -- federal funds are our single most important source of support for research.

In its latest stimulus package, Congress wisely included some $1.25 billion for federal research agencies to support the rapid development of diagnostics, treatments and vaccines for coronavirus. We’re tremendously grateful for this investment, and we hope it signals the beginning of reversing the recent trend of declining federal research funding. As Congress and the Trump administration consider future stimulus packages, we urge them to provide additional and ongoing support for research universities and academic health centers battling COVID-19 on behalf of our nation.

We still have a window of opportunity to make a difference in the current crisis with medical breakthroughs supported by the federal government. With the right support, research universities can continue to protect public health and save the lives of countless Americans. Acting now, we can solve this crisis more quickly and position ourselves on solid footing for whatever comes next.

Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/04/07/federal-government-should-invest-more-university-research-help-fight-covid-19

Preview of Upcoming UC Budget Woes

...(Napolitano) said it... remains unclear how the coronavirus crisis will affect UC’s budget picture. In January, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed a 5% funding boost for UC, amounting to $217.7 million, but Napolitano said she was recently told that he will remove the increase in his May revision. However, the state will revisit its funding to UC in August or September after July tax returns are in, she said.

At the same time, UC regents withdrew a proposal to raise tuition for each incoming class for the next five years, beginning this fall. Napolitano said Thursday that regents would not bring back that proposal at their May meeting...

Source: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-02/uc-states-third-largest-employer-commits-to-no-coronavirus-related-layoffs

Napolitano on CARES Act

UC Office of the President
Friday, March 27, 2020

University of California President Janet Napolitano issued today (March 27) the following statement on the $2 trillion bipartisan CARES Act:

Congress has passed and the President has signed into law an unprecedented spending bill that will allow the University of California to begin to meet extraordinary challenges during this pandemic. 

The CARES Act provides much-needed fiscal relief and funding to our health centers treating COVID-19 patients so that they will be able to purchase additional masks, gloves and other equipment desperately needed to protect the nurses, doctors and other medical professionals on the frontlines of this fight.

The law will also help ensure that UC students receive the necessary financial support to continue pursuing their education, while providing our researchers additional resources to combat this virus by further exploring possible treatments and a vaccine.

I would like to recognize Congress for working together to pass this emergency spending package, but acknowledge that more will need to be done before this global health crisis passes. I want to applaud Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, our California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, as well as all the members of the California Congressional delegation for working across party lines to come together and support legislation that will help Californians during this time of incredible need. 

I would also like to thank all of UC’s dedicated medical and clinical professionals, researchers, and those who are keeping our education enterprise running at this very difficult juncture. Though it will take time, we will weather this storm and come out much stronger on the other side.

Source: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-statement-cares-act