Ad Hoc or Master Plan - Thanks, but no thanks

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

We have been noting the erosion of the old Master Plan and the substitution of ad hoc legislative enactments, essentially at the behest of the community colleges. It seems the community colleges got the bills they wanted through the legislature and now that they are sitting on the governor's desk, they don't like what they got. From CalMatters:

California’s community colleges have been trying for several years to offer more bachelor’s degrees. This year, they put their hopes in two sweeping bills designed to help them do that. But lawmakers made massive, last-minute changes that prompted the state’s community colleges to now oppose the legislation. The abrupt change of heart, spurred by new limits on how much the colleges could grow their bachelor’s programs, didn’t influence the outcomes of the bills, Senate Bill 960 by Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, a Democrat from Napa, and Assembly Bill 2694 by David Alvarez, also a Democrat from Chula Vista. Both passed...

Colleges would be able to offer an additional two to 12 bachelor’s degrees starting in 2028 depending on their students’ certificate, degree and transfer completion rates. No college district could propose more than three new degrees per year and districts would need to prove that there’s a workforce need in their region to justify the creation of a bachelor’s degree. That’s a claim the state’s labor secretary would step in to validate if the California State University system objects, as has regularly occurred in the pitched policy disputes between the community colleges and the university...

“We’re being asked to … support a process that is not completely understood or vetted at the last minute, and so that’s just not great policymaking,” said Larry Galizio, president and CEO of the Community College League of California, an association representing community college presidents and board leaders...

Full story at https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2026/09/community-college-bachelors-degrees-california/.

Ad Hoc or Master Plan - Part 2

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

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

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

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

Less than meets the eye - Part 2

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

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

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

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

===

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

SMC

Santa Monica College is one of the major feeders of transfer students to UCLA and is having fiscal problems that threaten its status. As blog readers will know, there is pressure on UC and UCLA to meet transfer student enrollment targets.

From the Santa Monica Daily Press: The years-long failure to arrest Santa Monica College’s enrollment decline and fiscal crisis has endangered the school’s accreditation according to a new warning sent by the institution responsible for evaluating community colleges. The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) notified SMC Superintendent/President Kathryn Jeffery in July that the college had scored in the "at-risk" category on the commission's Composite Financial Index, based on data submitted in the college's 2026 annual fiscal report. Institutions that score at-risk are automatically placed on enhanced monitoring, a designation ACCJC uses to track member colleges' fiscal stability throughout the accreditation cycle.

...[ACCJC Vice President Melynie] Schiel's letter cited four factors behind the at-risk designation: an unresolved structural deficit, marked by expenses exceeding revenue in each of the last three reporting years, from 2022-23 through 2024-25; a significantly unfunded Other Post-Employment Benefits liability with no district contributions over that same three-year span; a 34% decline in the district's ending cash balance over three years; and multiple expired collective bargaining agreements that remained unresolved. The commission required SMC to submit an update describing the actions it is taking to address those factors, and cautioned that colleges that remain on enhanced monitoring for three consecutive years without resolving their fiscal issues could face adverse action from the commission.

The ACCJC serves as the primary accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education for two-year institutions across California and the Pacific, overseeing 136 colleges as of 2024. This institutional seal of approval is the critical mechanism that grants member colleges access to federal Title IV financial aid, ensures the transferability of credits, and maintains the essential academic legitimacy required to serve their student populations...

Full story at https://www.smdp.com/santa-monica-college-faces-accreditation-threat-over-financial-crisis/.

Ad Hoc Plan or Master Plan?

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

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

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

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

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

Note: The original Master Plan is at:

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

The A-G Charge

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

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

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

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

Less than meets the eye

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

See the full text of the bill below:

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

Article  3.8. Employment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lost Track

Sad to say, this blog lost track of a case from a California community college involving such issues as free speech, academic freedom, etc. It involved a faculty member at Bakersfield College who objected to DEI statements and related matters. We had previously covered it at an earlier stage.*

The case was initially dismissed, appealed, largely won by the plaintiff through a temporary injunction, and finally and recently made permanent. From Inside Higher Ed:

...In a 2023 lawsuit, [history professor Daymon] Johnson accused administrators of penalizing him and other professors for expressing conservative political and social views based on the system’s DEIA principles, including that faculty “employ teaching, learning, and professional practices that reflect DEIA and anti-racist principles” and demonstrate “proficiency in DEIA-related performance to teach, work, or lead within California community colleges.” He claimed the mandate would force him to express views he didn’t believe...

The settlement turns a preliminary injunction granted by a federal court in February into a five-year permanent injunction that prevents administrators from investigating, disciplining or terminating Johnson for political speech.** But he’s still required to attend mandatory DEIA training to serve on a faculty screening committee. Johnson also won $150,000 toward his attorneys’ fees, according to the Institute for Free Speech, which represented him in the lawsuit...

Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2026/07/13/bakersfield-settles-professor-suing-over-dei-principles.

Note that although the case involved DEI issues at a community college, a similar case arising from UC would likely produce the same effect, regardless of the particular topic. Forced speech in an academic setting maintained by a state entity would likely be found illegal,

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/02/more-on-community-college-dei-statements.html. 

**The court decision is at:

https://ecf.caed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_temp.pl?file=14621022-0--95548.pdf&type=application/pdf.

More on the need for a new Master Plan

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

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

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

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

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

Just so you know...

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

Another reminder of the dissipating Master Plan

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

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

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

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

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

Transfers

Given restrictions on anything resembling affirmative action stemming from the state's Prop 209 and pressure from the feds, other admissions devices that provide diversity are being explored. One is through transfers from community colleges. The various community colleges have a diverse enrollment that can vary by location.

From the Bruin: A program that will give some transfer students priority consideration for admission to UCLA is set to be implemented this fall. UCLA created the Associate Degree for Transfer Pilot Program in compliance with Assembly Bill 1291, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed in October 2023. The pilot program will be available to students who achieve an associate degree in certain majors at one of 10 California Community Colleges, including Cypress College and Oxnard College.

...The pilot program could increase diversity and the population of first-generation students at UCLA... Students must receive an associate degree in one of eight selected majors – anthropology, chemistry, environmental science, geology, mathematics, history, political science and philosophy – to participate in the program... UCLA selected the 10 campuses to partner with – all located within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Ventura and Kern counties – based on location and student enrollment...

Full story at https://dailybruin.com/2026/06/07/ucla-pilot-program-to-expand-opportunities-for-community-college-transfers.

Let's not forget about Canvas

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

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

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

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

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

State Senate/Assembly Resolution on AI

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

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 82

Introduced by Senator Niello

May 15, 2025

Relative to artificial intelligence in public higher education.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

The Budget Process

After having received the governor's May Revise budget proposal for 2026-27, the two houses of the legislature have been formulating their own versions. Under the state constitution, the legislature must pass a budget by June 15 or be penalized. But it is left to the legislature to define what a "budget" is, thanks to court decisions. So it is possible for discussions with the governor to continue after that date, if the legislature passes something labeled a budget. 

Because Democrats dominate the legislature, it is essentially Democrats that matter in the process. Senate Democrats have produced a budget document that is mainly a shopping list of proposals without a complete tabular presentation. It appears from the document that reserves will be falling under their plan (i.e., the budget is in deficit). 

The higher ed portion doesn't mention UC and mainly concerns adjustments for community colleges. It does contain an increase in the Middle Class Scholarship program which has some benefit for UC indirectly. You can find the Senate Democrats' document at:

https://sbud.senate.ca.gov/system/files/2026-05/may-28-2026-foundation-for-the-future-senate-version-of-the-budget_0.pdf.

In theory, the legislature could pass a budget and the governor could veto it. That is not going to happen. The governor could use his line-item veto to trim some elements. However, what is more likely to occur is that the two houses and the governor will get together, reconcile differences, and then enact a budget, even if the actual process extends beyond June 15.

Second thoughts at the legislature

The governor will soon be presenting his May Revise budget proposal. From the perspective of the legislature, despite all the PR that UC gives its research agenda, the typical legislator hears from parents whose kids didn't get into the UC of their choice. The fact that what gives prestige to the campuses that are disappointing parents is research doesn't register. 

Back in the Good Old Days, people are told - maybe by grandparents - it was easy to get into, say, UCLA. Now it is hard. It is also true, however, that the population of California has grown by a factor of around 2.5 since 1960, the date of the Master Plan. And more kids finish high school and want to go to college now. 

It is also true that the state has a lot more on its plate than it did in the early 1960s. Example: The state didn't worry about funding Medi-Cal back then because there was no Medi-Cal. So, despite the Master Plan's promise of no tuition, i.e., full state funding, UC gets a mix of tuition and funding. It gets a lot more money from out-of-state and international students than it does from in-state enrollees. 

To make room for more in-state students at the prestige campuses, the state required fewer out-of-state admissions and promised to reimburse UC for the loss or revenue. But that turns out to be expensive. So now the legislature is having second thoughts about the deal. From CalMatters:

In 2022, faced with mounting criticism from California parents and students who couldn’t get into the state’s three premier public universities, legislators and UC officials struck a deal. UC Berkeley, UCLA and UC San Diego would admit a combined 900 more in-state students a year, and the state would up their budgets to cover the loss of revenue from non-resident students, who pay three times what in-state students pay. 

That deal has since cost taxpayers $276 million and allowed around 3,000 more students to enroll at the three universities. While the costs were expected, the number is far higher than the annual $31 million figure Gov. Gavin Newsom and state legislators routinely cite for funding the in-state student expansion, a CalMatters analysis shows. Now, with one year to go in the five-year plan, some are wondering whether the program’s high costs should continue as-is, particularly as California faces several years of multibillion-dollar deficits...

Full story at https://calmatters.org/education/higher-education/2026/04/uc-admission/. (Dan Hare was nice enough to forward this article to yours truly.)

The fact is that you can always say that the marginal cost of adding one more kid in the back of the lecture hall is essentially zero. But that doesn't mean that adding thousands more will cost zero. And from UC's perspective, even if it were zero, those seats in the lecture hall could go to out-of-state students who pay more than in-state students. Since there are many in-state kids turned away, and many out-of-state kids turned away, the opportunity cost for UC of a seat is the difference between what the two kinds of students pay.

It has always been the case that you could "process" lots more undergraduate students cheaply. That's what CSU does. That's what the community colleges do. And that's why - as we have said on this blog umpteen times - the state needs a new Master Plan in which all the trade-offs are thrashed out rather ad hoc legislative directives.

What Milliken said about AI, Trump administration, and TPM - Part 2

Back on April 11th, we posted the audio of what UC President Milliken had to say at a PPIC conference two days earlier on AI, Trump, and TPM.* 

There were others at the event that were not included.

PPIC has now gotten around to posting the entire event (all participants) on YouTube.

You can see it at the link below:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDgsPRC0qcM.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/04/what-milliken-said-about-ai-trump.html.

Just a Reminder

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

From time to time, we like to remind folks - for all the good it does - about the need to develop and implement a new Master Plan for Higher Education, rather than make ad hoc legislative decisions. Currently, according to Capitol Weekly, there are four bills in the legislature that would make ad hoc adjustments:

...The California State University (CSU) system can already award some doctoral degrees, the scope of their offerings is limited to those that do not duplicate those provided by the University of California (UC). That restriction would go away under AB 2693 (Alvarez), which removes the requirement that the UC must approve any PhD offerings the CSU provides.

Restrictions on the California Community Colleges (CCC) system would also change under AB 2694, which would overturn a law that bars community colleges from offering a BA/BS degree if a similar program exists anywhere in the state. AB 2694 (Alvarez) would bar duplication “only within the same geographic region where there are documented unmet regional workforce needs.”

...AB 2301 [Soria] would establish a pilot program authorizing up to 10 community college districts to offer a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN), in an effort to address California’s nursing shortage.

Another Alvarez bill (AB 664) would allow Southwestern College in South San Diego County to offer up to four workforce-aligned bachelor’s degree programs...

All four bills are now in the Assembly Committee on Higher Education. The deadline to pass policy bills is April 24th.

Full story at https://capitolweekly.net/californias-higher-education-master-plan-in-flux/.

Of course, putting a bill in the hopper doesn't mean it will be enacted and signed by the governor. But there already have been such bills that have been enacted and signed. And there are likely to be more.

And even without the bill, there is this:

From Santa Monica Patch: Santa Monica College has received approval from the California Community Colleges Board of Governors and the Accrediting Commission of Community & Junior Colleges to launch a Bachelor of Science degree in Cloud Computing. “This new baccalaureate degree marks an important moment for Santa Monica College in fulfilling our mission of continuing to be a leader in preparing students for careers, as well as transfers,” SMC Superintendent/President Dr. Kathryn E. Jeffery said.

The four-year degree will be SMC’s second, after its B.S. in Interaction Design (IxD)—which was launched as part of a landmark statewide pilot program in 2015—and is slated to meet regional needs in one of the fastest-growing sectors in the global economy...

Full story at https://patch.com/california/santamonica/santa-monica-college-launching-bachelor-s-degree-cloud-computing.

Free

From columnist George Skelton, LA Times:

One unique perk California kids enjoyed for generations was tuition-free college. Now, a candidate for governor promises to bring that back... The candidate, former congresswoman Katie Porter of Orange County, even suggests a way to pay for her bold pledge... She‘d raise the corporate income tax a notch.

OK, it’s very unlikely to ever happen. The powerful business lobby would scream, even though California companies would benefit from a more educated workforce. And California’s public universities would probably cry about their revenue streams having to rely on unpredictable corporate profits rather than the pocketbooks of students’ parents.

...[One] reason for making college tuition-free again, she said, is that “it was a promise made to the people” by the California Master Plan for Higher Education... Free tuition [would be] only for California residents who are undergrads. And only in their third and fourth years at the University of California and California State University. If they desired free tuition in their first two years, they could attend community college. Many community colleges already waive course fees for full-time, first-time students...

Full column at https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2026-03-09/skelton-monday-politics-newsletter-porter-college-tuition.

The need is obvious

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

We keep pointing to the need to set up a process in California to develop a new Master Plan for Higher Education. The old one goes back to 1960 and at this point has little relevance to actual policy. Meanwhile, the evidence for that need keeps piling up:

From EdSource: Moorpark College in Ventura County will offer a program in cyberdefense. At San Diego Mesa College, students will be able to get a degree as a physical therapy assistant. And at Southwestern College in San Diego County, students can study urban planning in the CaliBaja region and earn a degree in transborder environmental design. Those are among the newly approved bachelor’s degree programs at California community colleges — despite objections from California State University to all three degrees. It’s the latest development in an ongoing clash between the state’s two largest higher education systems over what kinds of bachelor’s degrees should be offered across the 116 community colleges. 

...Until now, top California community college officials, who have final decision-making power, have typically not approved degrees that face active objections from CSU campuses...

Frustrated by CSU’s opposition, some lawmakers and advocacy groups in Sacramento are moving to make it easier for community colleges to create the degrees. The Legislature this year could consider Senate Bill 960, which would restrict four-year universities from bringing duplication objections unless they are located near the community college. And the Community College League of California, an advocacy group, is floating the idea of a future ballot measure to do the same...

Full story at https://edsource.org/2026/california-community-colleges-approve-3-new-bachelors-degrees-over-california-state-university-objections/751678.