Daily Cal used the word mistakenly "UC Berkeley suspends mistakenly approved Palestine DeCal amid outcry"
Now, Hesse writes this letter:
Understandably being received as:
"No Mistakes Were Made: Dean Carla Hesse's letter explaining her rescinding of her suspension of the student-run.."
And recall in Academeblog: included:
There also could be concerns over Title IX spillover effects or red flags about leadership understanding process, mistakes, effective admin communication on processes etc.
Those concerns came up: here in this op ed - may have seemed overly harsh at the time, or...
"The new version now goes to the Academic Senate’s course committee for consideration"
"covertly" tried to stop the course. Administrators said the reason for pulling the plug was procedural — that proper approval had not been obtained.
Then campus officials reversed gears Monday, reinstating the course after students, faculty, free-speech advocates and Palestinian rights groups issued letters and circulated petitions denouncing the suspension as a violation of academic freedom."__
"Student...demanded an apology from administrators Monday."
BTW, isn't it Professor (Hesse)- rather than Ms. Hesse? Chron higher Ed pays attention to academic titles, no?
Other item, this below did not get near the same level of coverage- but important:
"The other meeting going on at the same time was the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee. There was a lot of discussion of debt policy including pension debt. During the discussion, there was reference to a 70% rule which apparently is embedded somewhere in Regental policy and which says that if the pension plan becomes less than 70% funded, other UC borrowing should halt. This is a bit odd on its face. Would all capital projects that need to borrow come to a screeching halt? There may be a perverse bright side to this rule since it gives the Regents an incentive not to let funding decline below 70%. Maybe the Senate should agitate for an 80% rule. 90%? :)
More seriously, David Crane - who was a kind of queen for a day on the Regents (he was appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger but not confirmed so he dropped off) - is back, this time as an outside adviser to the Committee. He is pushing - and apparently got one Regent to go along - for using something like a 4% discount rate to evaluate plan liabilities. There is much to be said for using a realistic forecast to estimate the plan's projection of its long-term earnings. (UC's chief investment officer thinks a realistic rate is a 6-ish per annum number rather than the official 7.25%.) Using a much lower discount rate would significantly raise the measured unfunded liability. (We italicize "measured" because the actual rate of funding is what it is and can't be known for sure since it is inherently a forecast.) More on this at:
An alternative link is:
Let's just say that if the Crane view gets traction at the Regents, there will be problems"
--simply want to not here as fyi that Crane has been in that adviser role to UC Regents since he dropped off unconfirmed a few years ago