I Never Promised You a Rose Bowl? - Part 16

We have noted that UCLA recently announced that its upcoming football season will be in the Rose Bowl, although there is ongoing litigation occurring regarding its lease agreement. While there may have been a variety of reasons for the announcement, it appears that one of them stems from that litigation.

From Pasadena Now:

A lawsuit filed by the Rose Bowl Operating Co. alleging UCLA is wrongfully exploring options for a new home football venue, specifically SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, should be stayed pending an appeal of a judge’s ruling that the case should not be arbitrated, the UC Regents’ attorneys state in new court papers. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Joseph Lipner heard arguments on the UC Regents and SoFi Stadium motions to compel arbitration, then took the issues under submission before ruling on Feb. 5 that the case should be heard by a jury...

But the UC Regents, on behalf of UCLA, state in court papers filed with Lipner [last] Thursday that a hold on proceedings is again warranted, this time because of their appeal of the arbitration denial...

"There is no urgency in resolving this matter because UCLA confirmed that it intends to play its home football games at the Rose Bowl Stadium for the 2026 college football season,” the UC Regents... contend in their court papers...

Full story at https://pasadenanow.com/main/uc-regents-ask-court-to-pause-rose-bowl-suit-while-ruling-preventing-arbitration-is-appealed.

Translated: There is no need to go to trial any time soon because, after all, we are going to be playing at the Rose Bowl next year.

Tightening

Blog readers will know that Harvard and other universities have become concerned about grade inflation and have begun to tighten standards. That trend seems to be coming to UCLA, at least in some departments. From the Daily Bruin:

The math department’s new grading policy is meant to make grading more equitable across different lectures of the same courses. But some students say it closely resembles a quota system – which the department bans.

The department will now determine grade cutoffs for each course – or percentage values corresponding to each letter grade – at the end of each quarter. These cutoffs will apply to every lecture for a given course – a change from previous quarters, in which professors decided grade cutoffs for their individual classes. This change aims to address grading inequities across lectures for the same course, said Marcus Roper, the undergraduate vice chair of the mathematics department...

The department will give professors an expected range of each letter grade to give out, Roper said. However, professors can choose to assign more or less of a grade within that range based on their evaluation of a class’s engagement and overall performance, he added...

Full story at https://dailybruin.com/2026/02/24/math-department-standardizes-grade-cutoffs-across-lectures-to-address-inequities.

Straws in the Wind - Part 270

From the Daily Princetonian: In a series of... memos, the University informed faculty and non-union staff of raise cuts and benefit reductions for the coming fiscal year, with a decrease in personnel also on the horizon. The adjustments to employee pay and benefits came shortly after the annual State of the University letter from University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 reported that the University would be tightening its budget primarily due to declining long-term endowment return expectations and continued uncertainty over federal funding. Eisgruber discussed some of the raise cuts at his annual Council of the Princeton University Community town hall... 

Provost Jennifer Rexford ’91 and Executive Vice President Katie Callow-Wright sent an email obtained by the ‘Prince’ to employees informing them that benefits would also be cut. “We want everyone to be aware that some reduction to the University’s generous benefits structure is coming,” Rexford and Callow-Wright wrote. “Overall headcount at the University will decline as we reallocate resources to protect our highest priority areas,” they also warned. The email did not specify whether this referred to layoffs or not renewing positions after retirements...

Full story at https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2026/02/princeton-news-broadfocus-u-cut-employee-benefits-raise-reductions-mixed-reactions.

The less said, the better?

UC President Milliken gave a lengthy interview about various topics related to UC to the LA Times. It appeared yesterday, but apparently occurred before the most recent DOJ lawsuit was filed against UC:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-03-02/uc-president-james-milliken-interview.

Apparently, the Times would have liked less to be said:

"Milliken was more verbose on the role of higher education and his big-picture visions for UC."

===

Regardless of the word count, this is what Milliken had to say about the current conflict with the feds and how UC is dealing with it:

https://ia601506.us.archive.org/0/items/newsom-03-04-2026/UC%20Pres%20Milliken%20on%20UC%20response%20to%20conflict%20with%20fedl%20govt%20posted%203-2-2026.mp4.

How Independent?

From time to time, something is done or said by student government that raises controversy or concern. The response at UC and its various campuses is that student government is independent of the university, i.e., the university is not responsible for what occurs.

The problem is that student government, like any government, needs revenue to operate and the university collects the fees that provide its revenue. A recent article in the Daily Bruin on a proposal to raise such fees, notes that increases in fees must be approved by the chancellor and the president of UC:

UCLA students may be able to vote on one of the Undergraduate Students Association Council’s costliest referendums this May. USAC approved three referendums to appear on undergraduate students’ ballots in the May election – including the Bruin Success Referendum, Bruin Bash Referendum and Bruin Life and Undergraduate Experience Fee Referendum – at its Feb. 24 meeting. The Bruin Success Referendum could add an additional $55 to students’ quarterly fees, while Bruin Bash would be an extra $3.13 and BLUE Fee Referendum would charge $27.

The UC Office of the President and Chancellor Julio Frenk must approve the referendums before they can officially appear on the ballot for the undergraduate student body to vote on. Any campus-based student fee collected is required to have a 25% return-to-aid, meaning a quarter of the fee is returned to students who qualify for financial aid...

Full story at https://dailybruin.com/2026/02/27/fee-increasing-referendums-pass-usac-await-chancellor-approval-for-may-ballots.

In short, student government proposes; UC's administration disposes. Tuck that fact away for future reference, if and when some controversy arises.

Cat has let go of tongue

As blog readers will know, it was only last Saturday when yours truly wondered why the Regents weren't scheduling one of their closed-door meetings to discuss the conflict with the feds, after DOJ filed its recent lawsuit against UC/UCLA.*

Well, two days after that posting, guess what appears on the Regents' website: announcement of a closed-door meeting tomorrow. The notice is dated Feb. 28, the very day we raised the issue, but it wasn't actually posted until today, or possibly late yesterday.

===

February 28, 2026

TO THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA:

Because the membership of the Advisory Group on Research and Programs Funding Legal Issues (“Advisory Group”) includes five members of the Regents’ Governance Committee, there exists the potential for having present a quorum of a Regents’ Committee when the advisory committee meets.

This notice of meeting is served in order to comply fully with pertinent open meeting laws. On Tuesday, March 3, 2026, there will be a Closed Session, Special Meeting of the Regents’ Governance Committee concurrent with the Advisory Group to discuss Research and Programs Funding Legal Issues (Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code section 92032(b)(5)].)

The meeting will convene at 4:00 p.m. at 1111 Franklin Street, Oakland and adjourn at approximately 5:00 p.m.

(Advisory Group members: Regents Anguiano, Cohen, Hernandez, Matosantos, Milliken, Reilly, Robinson, Sarris, and Sures)

Source: https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/march26/meeting-notice_federal-march-3-2026.pdf.

===

Unlike, past closed-door meetings, a full hour is allotted in contrast to the thirty minutes allotted to some of the past meetings. So now the question is, will the closed door be green?

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg7l7UEYMOI.

===

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2026/02/cat-got-your-tongue.html. 
 

Berkeley Among Universities Dropping PhD Project

Press Release

U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Secures 31 Agreements with Colleges and Universities to End Partnerships with The Ph.D. Project

...The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that it has secured thirty-one resolution agreements (RAs) with institutions of higher education to cease their partnerships with The Ph.D. Project, an organization which provides doctoral students with insights into obtaining a Ph.D., but unlawfully limits eligibility based on the race of participants. After initiating investigations several months ago into forty-five institutions of higher education for collaborating with the Ph.D. Project, OCR later determined that these institutions violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) by partnering with an organization that discriminates on the basis of race.    

These thirty-one universities had either already terminated their relationships with The Ph.D. Project or have agreed in their RAs to end their memberships or partnerships. Each institution also agreed to conduct a review of their partnerships with external organizations to identify any that violate Title VI by restricting participation based on race. 

“This is the Trump effect in action: institutions of higher education are agreeing to cut ties with discriminatory organizations, recommitting themselves to abiding by federal law, and restoring equality of opportunity on campuses across the nation,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “We are hopeful that other institutions with similarly discriminatory practices will follow suit, paving the way for a future where we reject judging individuals by the color of their skin and once again embrace the principles of merit, excellence, and opportunity.” 

The institutions which have signed RAs with OCR to cease their partnership with The Ph.D. Project are: 

• Arizona State University – Main Campus 
• Boise State University 
• Carnegie Mellon University 
• Clemson University 
• Duke University 
• Emory University 
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 
• Montana State University – Bozeman 
• New York University (NYU) 
• Rice University 
• The Ohio State University – Main Campus 
• Towson University 
• Tulane University 
• University of Arkansas – Fayetteville 
• University of California – Berkeley 
• University of Chicago 
• University of Cincinnati – Main Campus 
• University of Colorado – Colorado Springs 
• University of Delaware 
• University of Kentucky 
• University of Michigan – Ann Arbor 
• University of Minnesota – Twin Cities 
• University of Nebraska – Omaha 
• University of North Dakota – Main Campus 
• University of North Texas – Denton 
• University of Notre Dame 
• University of Utah 
• University of Wisconsin – Madison 
• University of Wyoming 
• Washington University in St. Louis 
• Yale University 

OCR is in ongoing negotiations with the remaining 14 schools. 

===

Background 

Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in education programs and activities receiving federal funding.

Source: https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-civil-rights-secures-31-agreements-colleges-and-universities-end-partnerships-phd-project.