Of course, video and audio embedded in the blog will be unavailable using that option. But you can always go to the particular blog posting to obtain the video or audio.
For the first quarter of 2025, the reading/printing option is at:
Monday, April 7, 2025
The Alternative Way to Read the Blog
With NIL, who gets to Control the Lion's Share: Maybe Not Lyons
From SFGATE: For the first time since 2011, there’s a growing anxiety among Cal fans about the future of their football program that stems directly from what Andrew Luck is doing at Stanford.
Two board members of California Legends Collective — the Golden Bears’ only third-party name, image and likeness collective — have announced that they will no longer personally donate to the organization they oversee until the school meets their singular demand: Put newly hired general manager, and former NFL head coach, Ron Rivera fully in charge of Cal football.
This drastic move comes at a rather interesting time in the program’s history. Over the past four years, the Golden Bears have been better on the gridiron than the Cardinal in almost every conceivable way. The four-year Cal graduates at spring commencement will be the first class since 2006 to experience a total sweep over Stanford in the Big Game. To top it all off, the school brought in Rivera on March 20 as its first football general manager.
But given the emerging circumstances in Palo Alto, the state of the program is still not good enough.
“We all have to acknowledge that we haven’t achieved everything we wanted to achieve,” Kevin Kennedy, president of California Legends Collective, told SFGATE. “So the story is still being written. We’re still working to kind of create the most competitive team possible — and teams possible — and, honestly, have Cal’s athletic success match academic excellence.”
The return of Rivera, a decorated former Cal athlete, could have universally been considered a momentous occasion for the Golden Bears. But in some Cal fans’ minds, it was ruined by their archrivals across the bay. After hiring Luck back in November to be general manager of Cardinal football, Stanford shared that the former quarterback would be above then-head coach Troy Taylor on the organization chart, which ESPN called “an innovative turn in how football operations work.” Luck then flexed that muscle when he fired Taylor after an ESPN report came out revealing investigations into employee complaints about Taylor’s workplace behavior toward women. There’s no ambiguity about Luck’s role and what he’s in charge of over at Stanford.
However, that innovation didn’t make its way to Berkeley. When Cal announced the Rivera hire four months later, the release noted that the two-time NFL Coach of the Year will report to chancellor Rich Lyons. Head coach Justin Wilcox, meanwhile, will continue to report to athletic director Jim Knowlton. This ruffled more than a few feathers among Cal’s donor community.
“You don't hire Mario Andretti and ask him to sit in the passenger seat, right?” said Kennedy, who’s been with the collective since the NIL era began in 2021. “There’s a reason that you bring someone like that on staff: In order to give him control.” In the days following the announcement, Kennedy was one of two California Legends Collective board members to release statements saying that they would withhold their personal donations until UC Berkeley followed Stanford’s lead.
Kennedy sent his message to the collective’s donor group, which he then shared with SFGATE. After complimenting Lyons and Rivera for getting this hire done, Kennedy wrote that he wasn’t fond of the lack of clarity surrounding the organizational structure of the football program. While Stanford’s announcement clearly stated that football would be under Luck’s direction and control, Cal’s, per Kennedy, left too many unaddressed concerns. For instance, how can Rivera oversee football if no one actually reports to him?
Sunday, April 6, 2025
Immigration Update
Dear Bruin Community:
In recent days, a number of international students on F-1 status at universities across the nation have had their visas revoked and Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) status terminated by the federal government. These actions have understandably created a great deal of questions within our Bruin community. As your chancellor, I will always strive to keep you informed on important situations. To that end, here is what we currently know:
During a routine audit of SEVIS records, UCLA officials learned that the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) had terminated the SEVIS status of six current students. SEVP also terminated the status of six former students currently participating in the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program. These numbers are fluid and may change.
The termination notices indicate that all terminations were due to violations of the terms of the individuals’ visa programs. At this time, UCLA is not aware of any federal law enforcement activity on campus related to these terminations.
We recognize that these actions can bring feelings of tremendous uncertainty and anxiety to our community. We want our immigrant and international UCLA students, staff and faculty to know we support your ability to work, learn, teach and thrive here. As UCLA leaders and I wrote in our March 12 letter to our Bruin community: You are not alone. You belong at UCLA, and you are an essential part of our community. In that message, we shared resources and support that are available to you. I encourage students to make use of UCLA’s Dashew Center for International Students and Scholars. For the latest information on federal actions and available resources, please visit UCLA’s federal updates web page and the UC systemwide federal updates web page. Additional resources appear below.
I continue to meet almost daily with UC President Michael Drake and my fellow chancellors in the UC system to prepare for — and respond to — any federal policy changes. I am also in constant contact with senior leaders on campus. We remain committed to supporting our students as we abide by the law. We will continue to keep you updated on pertinent developments with the safety and well-being of our Bruin community remaining our utmost priority.
In challenging times like this, we need to stay informed and stay connected. Let’s work together and remember: We are One UCLA.
Sincerely,
Julio Frenk
Chancellor
Everything seems to be deferred
...Lawmakers included UC and Cal State in an early version of Proposition 2, a school bond measure approved last November, but the university systems were eventually left out to limit the amount of bond money voters were asked to approve. At the UC, where total capital needs are expected to grow to $30.7 billion by 2030, system leaders said they were disappointed to be left off the state bond despite 18 months of lobbying the Legislature.
“Going forward, UC will be exploring other options to address our construction, renewal and deferred maintenance needs,” wrote UC spokesperson Heather Hanson via email...
Full story at https://calmatters.org/education/2025/04/deferred-maintenance-cal-state-uc/.
As we noted in our review of the most recent Regents meetings, UC is hoping to become part of a possible housing bond.* Whether that happens is uncertain. And the degree to which such funding could be used for deferred maintenance on student housing is also unclear.
===
*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2025/04/watch-regents-meeting-of-march-20-2025.html.
On the wall or off the wall?
Republican-controlled legislatures in two bordering states, Ohio and Kentucky, have now passed laws requiring post-tenure review policies at public universities and banning diversity, equity and inclusion offices, along with other DEI activities.
Many faculty and some Democratic leaders say the new laws threaten academic freedom and undermine tenure. In Ohio, lawmakers passed the sweeping higher education legislation, which has been in the works for a few years, over protests from faculty and students. The Ohio Student Association, for instance, said the bill would kill higher education in the state. Meanwhile, in Kentucky, Republican lawmakers rushed legislation through the process in order to successfully override their Democratic governor’s veto and put their higher education changes into law.
Ohio and Kentucky join Arkansas, Utah and Wyoming this year as states where Republicans have passed laws targeting DEI and/or promoting alternative “intellectual diversity.” Even if the Trump administration’s ongoing nationwide attacks on DEI founder, these laws lock in restrictions on DEI in these states, preventing institutions from reversing course on diversity program rollbacks. Much of the new laws in Ohio and Kentucky echo the DEI bans that the other states have enacted, but Ohio’s legislation goes further than Kentucky’s, allowing immediate "for cause post-tenure reviews," banning strikes for a large group of faculty and much more...
Full story at https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academic-freedom/2025/04/01/ohio-and-kentucky-ban-dei-reduce-tenure-protections.
On Getting a Letter
Where is Harvard on the Princeton-versus-Columbia scale? In a previous post, we noted that Princeton and Columbia are in very different positions in terms of vulnerability to federal government pressure. Princeton doesn't have a medical school; Columbia does. Princeton is basically a relatively small but prestigious undergrad college with a grad program tacked on. Columbia is basically a large university that is top-heavy with graduate and professional programs with a college embedded in it. Harvard is closer to Columbia but is smaller in total enrollment.
Columbia undergrads are about one-fourth of total enrollment. Harvard undergrads are also around a fourth. Princeton undergrads are three-fourths. If you are wondering about UC, in a sense it is like Princeton, with almost 8 out of 10 students as undergrads. But, of course, it dwarfs all three of them as a system, with something like 300,000 students in total. UC, as a public system, is potentially subject to what could be conflicting political pressures from the state versus the feds should it receive the kind of letter from the feds that was sent to Columbia and Harvard. As we have noted in earlier posts, in total, about a third of UC's operating budget comes from the feds in the form of research grants, hospital revenues, management fees, etc.
Princeton's endowment is around 11 times the size of its annual operating budget. Harvard's is around 8 times. Columbia's is over twice its operating budget. UC systemwide endowment is a bit over half of it operating budget, but that leaves out campus endowments. Still, even with campus endowments, you couldn't operate UC for a year based on endowment money alone. And as we have noted, endowments are made up of funds that are often earmarked for particular purposes.
Princeton is best equipped to say "no" to the feds (and seems to be doing it), Harvard less so - but we will see, Columbia - we have already seen. As for UC, yours truly suspects that the folks at UC's headquarters in Oakland, and in Murphy Hall at UCLA, are hoping we don't get a letter or letters such as the ones received by the Ivy League schools and have to find out what the Regents would do.
Saturday, April 5, 2025
The Harvard Letter from the Feds
Source: https://x.com/sfmcguire79/status/1908108219798426070. Also at:
https://ia800402.us.archive.org/9/items/2-final-hjaa-report.-the-soil-beneath-the-encampments/Harvard%20Letter%20from%20the%20Feds%204-3-2025.pdf.
Note: Clicking on the images may clarify the text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)