No Additional News

Internet search and AI indicate no further developments in the case of the two missing Davis faculty members about which we posted on Sept. 5th. 

Missing

From the Sacramento Bee: Two professors at the University of California, Davis are among the thousands still missing after catastrophic flash floods swept through parts of Nepal on Aug. 26. Nearly 1,300 people have been killed in the disaster and more than 5,000 remain missing, according to Nepal’s disaster management agency. Rao and Vasu Unnava, both professors at the UC Davis Graduate School of Management, were staying in a hotel in Timure, Nepal, when the flash floods occurred, according to a message from the university’s chancellor and provost. Only a few kilometers from the border of Nepal and Tibet, they have not been located or heard from since then...

Rao Unnava stepped down as dean of the Graduate School of Management on July 1 after serving in that position for a decade... Vasu Unnava is an adjunct associate professor at the same school, where she teaches marketing and studies consumer behavior...

Full story at https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article317131341.html. 

On or Off?

From the Sacramento Bee: A sudden $12 million federal funding cut last year forced a UC Davis transportation research center and its partners to halt dozens of projects, disrupt student research and scramble for replacement money — setting off a legal fight that has left the center’s future uncertain more than a year later. The National Center for Sustainable Transportation quickly suspended research already underway and delayed projects scheduled to begin.

“Except for the Great Recession we haven’t had anything like this,” said Fraser Shilling, whose project modeling how traffic light and sound affects nearby wildlife was halted. “It was kind of like an administration-imposed recession on academia.”

The center was one of multiple university programs affected when the Trump administration canceled $54 million in previously awarded grants for programs that used “woke” terms in their applications, according to a U.S. Department of Transportation news release. The cut began a more than yearlong scramble to rearrange projects, seek private donations and fight for the funding in federal court as part of Thakur v. Trump, said center director Susan Handy. Although a judge ordered the funding restored late last year, the center’s work and employees have remained in flux as the lawsuit continues and the possibility remains that the money could disappear again...

Full story at https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article316689358.html.

Dueling Memos at Davis

Technically jousting memos rather than dueling, but, hey, horses are involved.
Or, since it's horses, should I have said "hay"? 

The ongoing battle over the discontinuation of the UC-Davis equestrian program continues with dueling memos concerning on audit:

Memo 1:

A Statement from Rocko DeLuca, Director of Athletics

7-13-2026

Today, UC Davis released the findings of an independent audit examining the evaluation and transition of our equestrian program. I fully supported the university pursuing this review, and I want to share directly what it means and what it doesn't, from my perspective as the Director of Athletics.

Six months ago, the university's decision to discontinue varsity status of our NCAA Division I equestrian program disappointed many student-athletes, alumni, parents, and supporters. That disappointment was real and understandable. As with any complex and multi-faceted decision, it is also understandable that some people disagreed with the decision itself.

What followed, though, went well beyond disagreement. I, along with members of our Athletics leadership team and other university officials, have been repeatedly and very publicly harassed, accused of dishonesty, of manipulating financial information, and of taking this difficult action in bad faith or devoid of sympathy. My integrity, and the integrity of colleagues who have given years of service to this institution, have been called into question. My own family has been threatened and harassed, through acts that go far beyond expressing professional disagreement.

The independent audit found no evidence of misconduct, misrepresentation, or premeditated motives in how the decision was made, and it concluded that the allegations of intentional falsification were unsubstantiated. It did identify opportunities for us to strengthen financial reporting documentation, improve oversight of ancillary fundraising activities, and more carefully review consultants' scope in future engagements. I fully support those recommendations. Continuous improvement is part of the job.

What matters most to me in the audit's findings is this: the decision was made through established university processes, based on a full review of budget-reduction options presented to campus leadership. After that comprehensive review, and taking into account all impacts, discontinuing the varsity status of equestrian was determined to be the option that best met our required $1M budget reduction target. The audit confirms that the decision was reached honestly, through the right process and was the result of a collaborative process with and the backing of university leadership.

The last six months have taken an enormous toll on so many devoted UC Davis employees, current student-athletes and coaches, on me and on my family. I understand that public leadership brings scrutiny, criticism, and difficult questions. I have never objected to good-faith disagreement; it is part of the responsibility of serving a public institution, and it can make it better.

But some actions went far beyond disagreement. Personal threats, intimidation, repeated visits to my home, and efforts to involve family members in a university decision crossed a line that should matter to everyone in our community.

In addition, images from my personal social media — showing my daughter with UC Davis cheerleaders at home games — were used to suggest that I elevated our STUNT program for her benefit or for her potential future involvement at UC Davis.

That allegation is entirely false.

My daughter has been a patient at Shriners Children's for much of her life, and her condition has never allowed her to participate in sports — let alone something as physically demanding as cheerleading. There is never a reason to bring families into professional matters, and those who weaponized a false assumption to repeatedly use online, on campus, and in public meetings should be ashamed.

As we move forward, I hope this experience reminds us that accountability and compassion are not competing values. We can ask hard questions, advocate passionately, and disagree strongly while still treating one another with dignity. That is the standard UC Davis Athletics will continue to uphold.

The independent review has now reiterated the original facts. My hope is that this clarity allows our community to move forward based on facts, respect, and a shared commitment to UC Davis.

I am grateful to the Athletics staff, campus colleagues, coaches, student-athletes, alumni, and friends who continued to lead, support one another, and represent this university with professionalism throughout these past several months.

I believe deeply in the future of Aggie Athletics. While the last six months have been difficult, they will not define us. What will define us is the standard we continue to uphold – accountability, transparency, resilience, and confidence in UC Davis Athletics.

Source: https://ucdavisaggies.com/news/2026/7/13/a-statement-from-rocko-deluca-director-of-athletics.aspx.

==

Memo 2:

Vindication or Validation? 

The Long-Awaited Audit Raises More Questions Than Answers

(Sacramento, CA) — Nearly two weeks after UC Davis' promised deadline, the university released its audit regarding the elimination of the Division I Women's Equestrian program.

While the report's release is appreciated, it is important to understand what it does — and does not — address.

Far from providing the unequivocal vindication described in Director DeLuca's accompanying statement, the audit identifies clear deficiencies with the Athletic Department's financial reporting, fundraising oversight, and consultant review processes — the very systems relied upon to justify eliminating the program. The audit and corresponding statements also leave many of the questions most important to stakeholders unanswered. 

First, this was a compliance audit, not the independent forensic investigation that student athletes, families, donors, alumni, and legislators have requested since they were blindsided by the university's January 9 decision. The compliance audit's scope is significantly narrower than expected. 

The audit did not examine Title IX concerns, false and misleading recruiting practices, or the assumptions underlying projected STUNT costs. It reviewed only two external communications despite months of internal e-mails and public statements alluding to predetermination regarding the program's elimination. Even its review of fundraising was limited, with auditors expressly acknowledging that a comprehensive assessment fell outside the scope of their work and would need to be addressed in a future audit.

The audit also identified several significant process failures within UC Davis Athletics, including inadequate documentation supporting NCAA financial reporting, insufficient oversight of fundraising activities, and consultant analyses that relied upon financial information not intended for internal budgeting decisions. The report recommends improved documentation, stronger validation procedures, clearer oversight, and more rigorous review of consultant assumptions and methodologies before they are relied upon in decision-making.

These are not minor administrative recommendations. They are acknowledgements that financial and oversight processes relied upon during one of the most consequential athletic decisions in recent university history were insufficient and require corrective action.

Perhaps most notably, the audit acknowledges that Collegiate Consulting relied on NCAA financial data intended for external reporting rather than internal budgeting decisions. The audit concludes that the consultant's assumptions and methodology should have been validated against the university's own accounting records before being used to support a major strategic decision. This is significant because Collegiate Consulting's analysis portrayed equestrian as costing substantially more than comparable calculations now suggest, yet that analysis was repeatedly cited to justify eliminating the team. Questions about the consultant's analysis have been at the center of stakeholders' calls for a broader independent review. In April, stakeholders of the team released the initial findings of an independent review conducted by OSKR, an economic and accounting firm, which challenged the financial assumptions used to justify the program's elimination. 

If that report served as independent support for eliminating a Division I program, stakeholders deserve to know why its assumptions and underlying financial inputs were never validated before the decision was made. 

The university now recommends new procedures to ensure consultant assumptions, methods, and financial inputs are carefully reviewed before being relied upon in the future. This is particularly significant because Collegiate Consulting's analysis portrayed equestrian as costing roughly twice as much as comparable calculations now suggest. The university has effectively acknowledged that the consultant's report relied on inaccurate financial inputs, yet that same report was repeatedly cited in support of eliminating the team. Moreover, the financial figures used by the consultant were also reflected in Athletics' own analyses and public representations regarding program cost and the same budgets and financial data that Collegiate Consulting relied upon in their report justifying the program’s elimination. 

The report further asks stakeholders to accept its conclusions without releasing the detailed financial analyses, calculations, schedules, and supporting documentation necessary for independent review. In effect, the university is again asking the public to trust an opaque process that the audit itself says lacked sufficient documentation, review, and oversight.

Transparency requires more than assurances — it requires factual information.

Finally, the audit does not address one of the central concerns raised throughout this process: not simply whether certain budget figures could be reconciled, but how those figures were presented to jus fy elimina ng the program. It does not evaluate repeated public claims that equestrian was among the university's most expensive sports or had the highest cost per student-athlete, nor does it examine whether those comparisons accurately reflected the underlying financial data and provided appropriate context. Those concerns are even more significant now that the university has acknowledged errors in the financial information relied upon by its consultant and reflected in NCAA reporting data. Those claims played a major role in shaping public opinion and decision, yet they remain largely unfounded and unexamined.

The university has consistently maintained that this was a financial decision. Yet, supporters offered to explore funding solutions, including an endowment or bridge funding that could sustain the program for two to four years and provide current student-athletes and recruits an opportunity to complete their collegiate careers or transition in an orderly manner. Despite those efforts, the university declined to pursue those discussions.

Ultimately, the audit answers far less than the university suggests. While it identifies problems and deficiencies in financial reporting, fundraising oversight, and consultant review processes, including the use of inaccurate financial information in analyses that helped support the program's elimination, it leaves many of the questions that prompted calls for independent scrutiny unresolved. Rather than putting this matter to rest, the report reinforces why an independent external investigation remains necessary. The university must also release the financial analyses, calculations, and supporting documentation used to justify this decision; not another statement and message that took weeks to create by a PR department. 

The university may consider this matter resolved. For those still seeking the evidence behind the decision, it remains anything but.

Source: UCD-EQ_Audit-response-statement.pdf.

Straws in the Wind - Part 410

From The Aggie: The ASUCD Judicial Council has unanimously decided against impeaching Senator Aaron Heth, a third-year political science major, and removing him from office over alleged misconduct relating to his attendance of a Campus Victory Project (CVP) conference in December 2025. The CVP conference, which was fully funded by the conservative nonprofit Turning Point USA (TPUSA), aimed to advise students on winning student government elections across the country.

...The justices wrote that the ASUCD Senate — which voted to start impeachment proceedings against Heth in late April — had failed to demonstrate that the impeachment was not pursued on partisan grounds or provide substantial evidence of Heth’s violations to the degree required by the ASUCD Constitution. “To publicly denounce a fellow senator because of his differently held political viewpoints runs contrary to what the Associated Students of the University of California, Davis proclaims as its core, institutional mission,” the decision [stated]...

Full story at https://theaggie.org/2026/5/28/judicial-council-acquits-aaron-heth.

The Davis Equestrian Program: Running the Clock

As blog readers will know, we have been interested in the UC-Davis decision to cut its equestrian team.* It's not that your truly has any special interest in horses. But what strikes him about this story is its similarity to the tale of the Grand Hotel (Luskin Hotel and Conference Center) at UCLA back in the day. As really long-time readers will know, that tale began with a decision that appeared to have been made BEFORE a faulty report had been prepared that supposedly justified the project. That faulty report - along with a push-poll that was intended to show popular neighborhood approval of the project - was so bad that the notion of demolishing the Faculty Club (now University Club) to make way for the hotel had also to be abandoned.

But the project itself was simply moved to the center of the campus and then justified by a business plan that was withheld from public view until it had to be given to the Regents. The Regents initially rejected the campus plan - which itself is very rare action. But they eventually approved a modified version. The moral of this story seems to be that once the powers-that-be commit to an idea, even if flawed, it's very hard for anyone in authority in campus administration to admit error. Egos are involved, if nothing else. In one form or another, the project goes forward. The parents protesting the equestrian termination at UC-Davis are (re)discovering this lesson. From SFGATE: 

It was an otherwise calm Friday in January when UC Davis officials called the equestrian team into a meeting with almost all of the school’s athletic administration in attendance, alongside sports psychologists. At that moment, Zadie Stack, a sophomore at UC Davis from Santa Cruz, sent a distressing text message to her mother, Jen Landes: “Oh my god, Mom, I think they’re going to cut the team.” Landes could hardly believe what she had read. The UC Davis equestrian team was in the midst of an undefeated season in their conference, and was ranked No. 7 in the nation at the time. They won back-to-back conference championships in 2023 and 2024, won again in 2026, and took part in the NCEA national championships in 2019 — their inaugural season — and 2024. It was a celebrated program that gave her daughter a chance to continue the sport she loved closer to home after transferring from the University of Tennessee at Martin. The athletes themselves couldn’t even imagine the possibility as they entered their team meeting room.

...But moments later, the unexpected became reality: After eight seasons as a varsity program for the Aggies, UC Davis Equestrian would be relegated from its status as a Division I sport and only be supported at the club level. Along with this stunning announcement, Trimble said that Davis’ athletics department told the women on the team not to fight this because it’ll be a lot harder for them if they do. This was presented as an open-and-shut case of simple accounting, a cold but calculated decision made after “detailed financial analysis and an independent assessment of the national competitive landscape,” the school said in its initial announcement on Feb. 17. And in line with how other colleges across California have handled the aftermath of cutting college sports teams in recent years, UC Davis leadership is refusing to do interviews about the topic. UC Davis spokesperson James Nash declined to answer SFGATE’s request for an update about the program’s status. 

But in April, the school acknowledged it is reviewing its own decision to cut the team after others accused the school of manipulating the numbers it used when making the decision. And now, only days remain until the program officially ceases to exist, with no word from the school on the status of that review. That there is this waiting period at all is because of the Aggie student-athletes and their parents, who formed a group called Keep Davis Riding to keep pressure on the school and the athletic department. From the start, many in the group felt the school’s explanation didn’t add up. Whether that was because one parent was still getting fundraising calls for the program shortly after this news broke or because the school allegedly wouldn’t let the public see the data Davis referenced in its meeting with the student-athletes, they felt there were plenty of reasons to be suspicious.

UC Davis released a third-party report from Atlanta-based firm Collegiate Consulting that it used to inform its decision to cut equestrian on Feb. 17, about six weeks after the student-athletes learned they were losing their team. However, since Davis is a public school, it is subject to public records laws, and parents were able to receive additional information about the decision around that same time. And what the parents discovered only raised more red flags.

The most damning information they received in the documents, which the group shared with SFGATE, was that the athletic department began to consider cutting equestrian nearly a full year prior to its announcement. The university had tasked athletics with making a 10% cut to the department’s budget (approximately $1.05 million), and the athletic department said in March 2025 that cutting equestrian would supposedly save the school $1.02 million. After a few months of deliberation, the official decision to cut the program was made in August — five whole months before the school informed the student-athletes — pending an external review.

In an emailed response to SFGATE..., Nash said the “final decision” to cut the program wasn’t made until “shortly before” the Jan. 9 announcement. Documents SFGATE reviewed show a Dec. 18, 2025, email from athletic director Rocko DeLuca discussing the “previously aligned campus direction” about cutting the equestrian program and detailing precisely how UC Davis planned to message the decision on Jan. 9, a full 22 days later. In the cutthroat world of college recruiting and the transfer portal, both the students currently on the team and rising high schoolers recruited to Davis were left in the dark about the school’s plans for weeks, if not months...

But when the parents looked deeper, they found what they felt were major flaws in the third-party report, which compared data to schools without equestrian programs. Collegiate Consulting counted the value of donated horses as part of the overall cost of the program at Davis. It also failed to account for out-of-state tuition as part of the revenue that the program brought into the university. By the parents’ estimation, some of the costs were off by hundreds of thousands, and were reportedly 10 times higher than Fresno State, the only other California school with an equestrian team... 

But when the parents looked deeper, they found what they felt were major flaws in the third-party report, which compared data to schools without equestrian programs. Collegiate Consulting counted the value of donated horses as part of the overall cost of the program at Davis. It also failed to account for out-of-state tuition as part of the revenue that the program brought into the university. By the parents’ estimation, some of the costs were off by hundreds of thousands, and were reportedly 10 times higher than Fresno State, the only other California school with an equestrian team. 

...When presented with these concerns, UC Davis announced on April 3 that an independent auditor would review the initial report it based its decision to cut the team on. But Keep Davis Riding wanted to independently confirm that their conclusions, and math, were sound. They hired an independent firm called OSKR to do their own audit of the report. OSKR’s audit claimed the value of the donated horses was, in fact, counted under the program’s expenses for $665,000. Another expense was the boarding fees that the team paid the university, which should have been considered an “internal transfer where the expense item burdened by the team is a revenue item for the school,” the OSKR analysis said. Davis also reported that the team’s direct overhead costs in 2024 were 45 times its average from 2019-2023, and the Collegiate Consulting report did not consider coaching salaries when comparing expenses to other Davis sports, OSKR said.

UC Davis reportedly overstated the equestrian team’s expenses by more than $850,000, more than double its actual amount, OSKR argued. UC Davis had initially claimed the equestrian team was second among the school’s 25 sports teams in terms of per-athlete spending. But without the overstated amount, OSKR’s audit said the equestrian team was actually 15th. 

...Initially, the parents felt equally vindicated in their efforts and hopeful that this could, in fact, be the final push to help save the program. But the celebrations could only last for so long. ...[The] announcement of an audit was 86 days ago, and UC Davis Chancellor Gary May told the school’s student newspaper, the California Aggie, “It’ll be completed by the end of June.” But the school continues to provide no update to the status and, when asked by SFGATE when it expects to publish said audit, school spokesperson Nash said, “We’ll release it to you once it’s public.” 

The end of June also marks the end of the athletic school year, meaning the program will be officially demoted after June 30. According to Trimble, who served as an officer for the team, just three of the 40 riders were able to transfer to another program, leaving the remaining 37 without a D-I team to compete on and, in some cases, a scholarship...

Full story at https://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/uc-davis-cut-equestrian-22317870.php.

It appears, in short, that that administrative strategy in this case is to run the clock and thus "win" by default.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/06/want-of-horse.html.

Want of a Horse

Faithful blog readers who follow our coverage of Regents meetings, and public comments therein, will know that a brouhaha at Davis has developed over the discontinuation of the equestrian program there. From the Chronicle of Higher Education: 

This academic year, the women’s equestrian team at the University of California at Davis completed a dominant season, winning all five of its conference matches and its third conference championship. But in January, with no warning, the university announced it was cutting equestrian as an intercollegiate sport. The decision came too late for team members to transfer to another program. Some incoming students who’d been recruited as athletes were denied regular admission to UC-Davis, several parents said, leaving them with no college to attend at all.

To justify their decision, university officials used a faulty report, supporters allege, riddled with errors and written by a consulting firm that recently stirred controversy for a similar analysis at another university. What’s more, administrators privately signaled nearly a year ahead of the announcement that they were planning to eliminate equestrian, according to emails obtained by the supporters’ group via a public-records request and shared with The Chronicle. At the same time, athletics officials continued to recruit athletes and solicit donations to support the team until shortly before they announced the team was being cut.

...Advocates are pursuing legal remedies — including a lawsuit in state court alleging that the athletics director and others engaged in fraudulent activity by misleading the recruits and assuring coaches, families, and students that the program was continuing. A parent with close knowledge of the situation told The Chronicle that a detective with the university’s police department was also investigating possible wire fraud, because the university continued to solicit donations for the team after it had effectively chosen to shutter it.

And a lawyer has warned the university that cutting the equestrian team could run afoul of Title IX, which requires gender equity in athletic expenditures and participation. The lawyer, Arthur Bryant, won a landmark settlement in April against San Diego State University for failing to provide as much in athletic scholarships to women as it paid to men. A university spokesperson declined to make anyone available to discuss the equestrian team because of the legal challenges. An earlier university statement said campus leaders believed they followed the proper procedures, but they were conducting a review “to evaluate financial records and reporting practices to determine whether expenses were accurately represented to decision-makers and other appropriate authorities.”

At a time when many colleges are considering cuts in athletics, UC-Davis is a case study in how missteps and poor communication can lead to legal risks and tense conflict with athletes and their parents, who have spent years and small fortunes pursuing dreams of intercollegiate sports...

Full story at https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-university-halts-its-top-ranked-equestrian-team-spurring-an-uproar.

Panunzio Awards

The 2025-2026 Constantine Panunzio Distinguished Emeriti Award honoring Emeriti Professors in the University of California system has been awarded to Professor Emerita of Anthropology Monique Bogerhoff Mulder (UC Davis) and Professor Emeritus of Agricultural and Resource Economics Alain de Janvry (UC Berkeley).

UC Emeriti Professors Borgerhoff Mulder and de Janvry are the fifty-sixth and fifty-seventh recipients of the Constantine Panunzio Award. Both awardees have especially long and notable records of research, teaching, and service to the University of California, their disciplines, and their communities. The late Dr. Panunzio, a Professor of Sociology at UCLA for many years, has been described as the architect of the UC Retirement System and was particularly active in improving pensions and stipends for his fellow Emeriti. The award bearing his name was established in 1983 and includes a $5,000 prize. The Panunzio Award exemplifies the tremendous contributions of Emeriti to the continued excellence of the UC System.

 

Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, UC Davis, Professor Emerita of Anthropology, retired in 2018. She has sustained an extraordinary level of scholarly productivity and leadership in the interdisciplinary fields of human behavioral ecology, conservation science, and sustainability studies. Her research continues to illuminate the intersections of poverty, inequality, and environmental conservation, particularly in East Africa, where she has conducted long-term collaborative fieldwork with pastoralist, fishing, and forest dependent communities. Professor Emerita Borgerhoff Mulder has secured multiple competitive research grants from the National Science Foundation, the UK Natural Environment Research Council, and the Global Challenges Research Fund. These awards, totaling several million dollars in research support, reflect the confidence of international funders in her methodological rigor and interdisciplinary vision. Elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2021, she continues to shape global scientific discourse through invited lectures, international workshops, and leadership roles in organizations such as the Cultural Evolution Society and the Santa Fe Institute. Her work also has substantial impact beyond academia. Through organizations she co-founded and advises, such as Watu Simba na Mazingira (WASIMA) and the Ngezi‑Vumawimbi Heritage Organization, she has advanced community driven conservation efforts in Tanzania and Zanzibar, strengthening local governance and supporting sustainable livelihoods. Her editorial work has set field standards and amplifies emerging voices, broadening interdisciplinary dialogue, and accelerating community engaged research.

--

Alain de Janvry, UC Berkeley, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural & Resource Economics, retired in 2017. Professor Emeritus de Janvry has sustained a field defining presence in development economics, agricultural policy, poverty alleviation, and the political economy of institutions. Through ongoing collaborations with scholars and international development organizations, he remains an influential voice in the global conversation on economic development, evidence-based policy, and risk management for vulnerable populations. Additionally, he has published landmark studies in the American Economic Review and AEJ: Applied Economics on bureaucratic incentives, disaster recovery, technology diffusion, and insurance adoption. His service on scientific councils has anchored rigorous, policy relevant editorial curation and broadened access for applied research communities worldwide. Professor Emeritus de Janvry’s field experiments on subjective performance evaluations in China, index-based disaster funds in Mexico, and the diffusion of climate resilient rice varieties in India exemplify his rigorous empirical approach. He has shaped research agendas through major monographs on disaster risk finance, and impact evaluation methodologies. His experimental and quasi experimental studies, ranging from randomized farmer training interventions to regression discontinuity analyses of disaster funding, have directly influenced program designs across governments and NGOs. He remains a dedicated mentor, advising graduate students, junior faculty, as well as practitioners, and continues to advance the use of evidence in policy design and implementation.

By the book at Davis

From Inside Higher Ed: Bill Garrity [university librarian and vice provost of digital scholarship] still remembers the moment last fall when the University of California, Davis, library transformed into a performance hall. A quartet played beneath its high ceilings, the strains of a medieval-style guitar echoing among the stacks... Increasingly, UC Davis students are turning to Shields Library not just to study but to attend musical performances, meet with mental health ambassadors, cuddle with therapy dogs and engage in other activities. Campus leaders say it has become a “third place”—a term coined by sociologist Ray Oldenburg to describe a space beyond home and work where people gather, connect and belong.

Amid broader discussions about the disappearance of third places—particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic—the role of community as a public health necessity has gained renewed attention. College libraries nationwide have increasingly stepped into that void... At UC Davis, “the library is intellectually, organizationally and physically at the heart of campus,” Garrity said. “It’s a place where people spend a lot of time and absolutely serves the whole campus—all students, all faculty, all researchers, all disciplines.” ...In addition to hosting programs, the library also deploys mental health ambassadors to engage students in conversation, promote stress-relieving activities and connect them with resources, Garrity said... The library also partnered with the campus tutoring center to repurpose the lower-level reading room into a centralized tutoring hub...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/student-success/college-experience/2026/03/03/uc-davis-library-emerges-campus-third-place.

Fast Movers

The San Francisco Chronicle notes there is a small but rising group of undergrads who finish in three years:

"Of the 31,550 students who began studying at a UC campus in 2005, fewer than 1,000 of them, 3%, went on to earn a diploma in three years. By 2021, more than 3,300 students — 6.4% of the 51,934 students who entered UC that year — had their a degree by 2024, just three years after landing on campus."

Full story at https://www.sfchronicle.com/college-admissions/article/uc-three-year-graduation-21251145.php.

UCLA ahead in the Wikipedia editing sweepstakes

The Daily Cal calculated the total number of Wikipedia edits - additions and deletions - by campus IP addresses across the UC system. It turns out that since its inception to late 2025, UCLA addresses made over 54,000 edits.

It's not clear whether that's a Good Thing, a Bad Thing, or just a Thing. Below is a chart from the article which can be found at https://data.dailycal.org/2025-12-24-wikiedits. 

The Elephant in the Zoom

The California State Auditor (CSA) apparently raised questions about use of "Online Program Management" companies (OPMs) to provide online instruction UC campuses. Since online instruction came into use, there have been commercial firms that provide instruction and have internet platforms for doing so. The Auditor apparently was concerned about who was doing the instruction as opposed to the method of delivery. The systemwide Academic Senate conducted a review in response.

Much of Senate review seems focused on "transparency" about who was doing the instruction, i.e., disclosing whether the instructor was from UC or from the outside OPM. But there seems to be a larger issue about outsourcing teaching. While much is said in the review about assuring quality, the review seems to sidestep the issue of outsourcing instruction. This avoidance seems surprising given the sometimes excessive concerns at UC and at the UC campuses about protecting "brands." Do we really want to have students, who have competed to be admitted to a UC campus and program, be taught by outside OPM instructors? Is that what our students thought they would be getting when they applied?

That's the unaddressed Elephant in the Zoom.

We reproduce below the cover letter of the review dated Nov. 20 to UC Provost Newman from Academic Council Chair Palazoglu. However, as noted, the issue raised in the Nov. 5 letter to Chair Palazoglu from Katheryn Niles Russ, Chair, Davis Division of the Academic Senate, Professor of Economics, University of California, Davis, seems to have been neglected in the final report: 

...UGC [Undergraduate Council] highlights their concern that the California State Auditor’s (CSA) report revealed that OPM-run courses were misrepresented as UC offerings, and wonders which departments are already using OPMs, how these arrangements benefit students, and what circumstances truly require OPM-hired instructors versus UC faculty and instructors. Similarly, CAES [College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences] questions what prompted the audit by the CSA and asks what the perceived benefits of hiring an outside company to manage these courses rather than vetting and hiring lecturers to manage the course internally are. CAES also wonders whether every OPM instructor should be reviewed and appointed as a lecturer to ensure that they meet UC standards, and whether the interim policy reflects a move to start offering third-party online courses for students for credit...

Source: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/council-chair-to-provost-presidential-opm-policy.pdf (p. 9)

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

November 20, 2025

Katherine S. Newman

Provost and Executive Vice President, Academic Affairs

Re: Systemwide Senate Review of Interim Presidential Policy for the University of California’s Use of Online Program Management Companies

Dear Provost Newman,

As requested, I distributed for systemwide Academic Senate review the Interim Presidential Policy for UC’s Use of Online Program Management Companies (OPMs). All 10 Academic Senate divisions and two systemwide Senate committees (UCEP [University Committee on Educational Policy], UCFW [University Committee on Faculty Welfare]) submitted comments. These were discussed at the Academic Council’s November 17, 2025 meeting, and the compiled feedback is attached for your reference.

The policy responds to recommendations from the California State Auditor (CSA) concerning UC’s use of OPMs. It establishes systemwide standards to uphold academic integrity, transparency, and compliance with federal and accreditation requirements in OPM partnerships. The policy requires that students be informed when courses are taught by non-UC instructors employed by OPMs and that instructor affiliations and credentials be clearly disclosed. It prohibits enrollment-based financial incentives, outlines expectations for student interaction and assessment, and provides guidance for working with accredited and non-accredited affiliates. The policy currently applies to graduate-level programs but may extend to undergraduate programs as UC expands online course offerings.

Senate reviewers expressed general support for the intent of the interim policy to ensure academic integrity, transparency, and compliance with federal and accreditation standards in UC’s partnerships with OPMs. They viewed the policy as an appropriate and necessary response to the CSA’s findings and an important step toward establishing consistent systemwide standards to address identified risks. However, reviewers found that the policy would benefit from greater clarity and detail regarding faculty oversight, intellectual property, and implementation mechanisms.

Policy Scope and Definitions: Reviewers requested clarification of the policy’s scope, noting inconsistent references to courses, programs, and divisions, as well as conflation of terms such as “schools,” “divisions,” and “Extension.” They recommended aligning terminology, clearly distinguishing between instructional and non-instructional OPM activities, and defining the policy’s coverage as UC expands into undergraduate online instruction.

Senate Oversight: Reviewers emphasized that Senate review and continuing faculty oversight must apply to all OPM-affiliated courses and programs. UCEP specifically noted the need to align OPM-related instructional hiring with Senate Regulations 750A and 800A, which govern faculty appointments and course approval. The committee also highlighted variation in Professional and Continuing Education hiring practices across campuses and recommended stronger coordination and oversight to ensure consistency and academic standards.

Instructor Qualifications and Transparency: Faculty supported disclosure of instructor affiliation and credentials but questioned the usefulness of fine distinctions among UC-employed and UC-contracted instructors. Several noted that professional programs may appropriately prioritize industry experience over traditional academic credentials.

Student Data Privacy and Security: There was strong concern about protecting student information handled by third-party vendors. Reviewers urged that all OPM contracts undergo IT security and privacy review consistent with UC data protection policies and that data retention and recovery protocols be clearly specified.

Intellectual Property and Course Ownership: Reviewers sought explicit assurance that instructional materials developed by UC instructors remain UC or faculty property and that UC retains control over the use and withdrawal of content hosted by OPM platforms.

Course Evaluation: Reviewers supported student evaluations but advised aligning them with UC’s established evaluation practices, supplementing them with peer or faculty review and periodic program-level assessments similar to academic program reviews. UCEP recommended that evaluations include items addressing the adequacy of online modality support for students.

Compliance, Accountability, and Transparency: While reviewers supported the prohibition on incentive-based compensation, they found enforcement provisions vague and recommended clearer accountability for campuses and vendors, defined consequences for violations, and greater transparency into UC’s OPM relationships. Many suggested a systemwide registry or regular reporting of contracts, financial terms, and oversight outcomes, and encouraged UC to build internal capacity for online program management to safeguard academic quality.

Overall, Senate reviewers support the policy’s goals and urge UCOP to strengthen provisions related to faculty oversight and appointment processes, clarify terminology and scope, specify data and intellectual property protections, and establish robust enforcement and transparency mechanisms before issuing a final policy.

Thank you for the opportunity to opine. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Ahmet Palazoglu

Chair, Academic Council

cc: Academic Council, Director of Academic Planning and Policy Corona, Senate Division Executive Directors, Senate Executive Director Lin

Source: https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/council-chair-to-provost-presidential-opm-policy.pdf (pp. 1-3)

Graduate Degrees After Undergraduate

The San Francisco Chronicle provides a listing of the percent of undergrads who go on to get graduate degrees from the various UC campuses. (UC-San Francisco is excluded because it has no undergraduate program.) The chart below highlights Berkeley, but all the other undergraduate campuses are shown:

Source: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2025/uc-graduate-degrees/.

The Numbers

Note: UC-Merced is listed separately at $28.6 million.

Source - EdSource: https://edsource.org/2025/california-research-grants-federal-funding-trump-administration/733468.
 

Only one problem...

The San Francisco Chronicle published the table above of salaries of high-paid undergrad majors. Note that UCLA's business major is among those listed. Only one problem, UCLA does not have an undergrad business major. It does have a "business economics" major within Economics. There hasn't been a straight business major at UCLA since the 1960s.

Yours truly has dim memories of surveys of UCLA undergrads in which many reported "majoring" in business (probably after having taken some undergrad accounting courses) even before the business economics major existed.

Source of table: https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/uc-berkeley-computer-science-salary-gap-20307107.php.

Some coming back

CalMatters reports that some cancelled NIH grants are being restored. UC itself seems to be maintaining a low profile concerning such issues:

The National Institutes of Health reversed its termination of a $36 million grant to a UC Davis researcher studying dementia, a day after CalMatters wrote about the cancelled grant and the researcher filed an appeal. The National Institutes of Health cancelled the grant last month, following the Trump administration’s ban on federal spending on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Charles DeCarli, a neurologist at UC Davis and lead researcher on the project, got a notice from the agency Friday morning that he could again use the grant’s funds and conduct his research. The agency gave no reason for the reversal...

In addition to DeCarli’s, other grants at the University of California were reinstated, said UC office of the President spokesperson Stett Holbrook on Saturday. He didn’t indicate which ones were brought back or when those notices appeared. But at least one notable grant has yet to be restored: a project studying the benefits and risks of the shingles vaccine at UC San Francisco that received national media attention, said Kristen Bole, a spokesperson for UCSF, on Friday...

Full story at https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2025/04/dementia/.

Can we stop giving them the hammer?

It's clear that the administration in Washington wants to take a hammer to higher education. The problem we have is that we keep giving them the hammer. From the Sacramento Bee:

UC Davis officials launched an independent review of a violent clash between a conservative organization and a group of counterprotestors that broke out on campus this week and seen tens of millions of times on social media, according to a university statement issued Friday. The UC Davis chapter of Turning Point USA, a conservative nonprofit with thousands of members across the nation, invited a speaker Thursday [April 3] for a 1 p.m. talk. 

Before right-wing commentator Brandon Tatum began his remarks at UC Davis’ Memorial Union Quad, a group of about 30 demonstrators confronted Turning Point USA members. The group of individuals — many of whom had their faces concealed behind masks — pulled down a tent of Turning Point USA and the shoving began, according to a statement by the university and videos of the scuffle posted on social media. 

UC Davis Chancellor Gary May said in a Friday [April 4] statement that it remains unclear if the “masked perpetrators were outside agitators or individuals affiliated with the university.”* He condemned the violence and said Turning Point USA members were peacefully expressing their views. “Regardless of their affiliation, all steps will be taken to hold those who were responsible accountable for their actions,” May said. If UC Davis students or employees were involved in the attack, May said, they will face disciplinary action outside of any criminal inquiries. 

UC Davis said Thursday no arrests had been made, and that the incident is under investigation. A university spokesperson in a statement also condemned the violence and said students have the right to invite speakers to express their views as well as to peacefully protest. Campus police did document one report of assault as of late Thursday, the university said in a statement...

Full story at https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article303526776.html.

===

*Chancellor May's statement is at https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/statement-chancellor-gary-s-may-april-3-incident.

===

Comment from yours truly: It would have been possible to have a peaceful protest - or simply to set up a counter-exhibit - without violence and violation of campus rules and laws. Going beyond is giving the hammer. No consequences for going beyond, other than an angry statement by the chancellor, is giving the hammer. Don't give the hammer. It's not complicated.

Low Applications Campuses Grow the Most

The San Francisco Chronicle provided the table above. It shows:

1) UCLA received the most applications of all the undergraduate campuses.

2) The low application campuses (Merced and Riverside) experienced the largest increases in applications, whether gauged from last year or pre-pandemic 2019. (Merced provided free applications to drive up applications this year.)

3) All campuses have significantly increased applications since 2019. But growth over last year at the high-application campuses stalled relative to last year.

Reminder: Applications are not the same as final enrollments. Enrollments are determined by the acceptance rate of the campus and within it, the acceptance rate of applicants.

Source: https://www.sfchronicle.com/college-admissions/article/uc-applications-20238586.php.
 

The Davis Locker Divide

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

UC Davis officials are responding to backlash from right-wing groups and concerned students after announcing plans to overhaul its locker room facilities, replacing traditional men’s and women’s sections with all-gender “universal” spaces. The $5 million renovation, announced last month and slated for completion in September, has sparked considerable opposition from conservative activist groups and some students. The university cited student feedback as the motivation for the change, initially stating, “All campus recreation members can use our universal locker rooms, regardless of who they are or how they identify. These spaces are inclusive of members with disabilities and all gender identities.” 

...Despite the criticisms, UC Davis maintains that privacy is a top priority. Bill Kisliuk, a spokesperson for the university, emphasized that the new locker rooms will offer fully enclosed spaces for changing, showering and using restrooms.

...However, some critics argue that the plan may not be sufficient for the high traffic expected at the recreation center.

One Reddit user questioned, “Did the college ask its female students how they feel about universal bathrooms or locker rooms?” ...Safety concerns have also been raised, with one Reddit user asking, “What happens when a man or other slips into this ‘private’ room, and now has phyical (sic) cover (a private room) to sexually assault a woman / other?” ...

Full story at https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/uc-davis-all-gender-locker-rooms-20204892.php.

The List

From a news release of the US Dept. of Education:

...The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent letters to 60 institutions of higher education warning them of potential enforcement actions if they do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus, including uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities...

Included on the list:

University of California Davis, University of California San Diego, University of California Santa Barbara, and University of California, Berkeley

Other California institutions included CSU-Sacramento, Pomona, Santa Monica College, Stanford, and USC.

The full release with all named institutions is at: 

https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-civil-rights-sends-letters-60-universities-under-investigation-antisemitic-discrimination-and-harassment.

UCLA is not listed, presumably because of the settlement last December with OCR:

https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2024/12/the-uc-deal-with-ocr-part-2-to-do-list.html.