Monday, October 16, 2017

The origins of it...

Jerry Brown signs bill to make community college free statewide for first year


Gov. Jerry Brown vetoes bill to protect climate research and scientists — but vows to preserve data


UC research, work on the Northern California fires comes up in:

Despite clear risks, Santa Rosa neighborhood that burned down was exempt from fire regulations
University of California’s Cooperative Extension, said the maps were an important step forward in assessing fire danger."...


An UCSA meeting at UCLA covered' here:


In June there was:

60 Minutes with WaPo raises key firms (who have very close ties with UC and other Higher Ed) in their detailed report hitting multiple headlines

Also recall some key individual UC senior management have ties to at least one of the major firms mentioned in the piece as well.

And btw , UC med health committee meets:
Related Resources

October 18, 2017

For Closed session:

Agenda – Closed Session
Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of April 13, 2017

H1(X) Discussion Conflicts of Interest in the Health Enterprise: Legal Implications
and Options
Closed Session Statute Citation: Litigation [Education Code §92032(b)(5)]

H2(X) Discussion Salary Adjustment Using Non-State Funds for
Chief Executive Officer, UC San Diego Health System,
San Diego Campus
Closed Session Statute Citation: Personnel matters [Education Code §92032(b)(7)]

H3(X) Discussion Salary Adjustments Using Non-State Funds for Certain Members
of the Senior Management Group within the UC Health System
And for Open session:

Action Approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of August 16, 2017
H1 Discussion Remarks of the Executive Vice President – UC Health

H2 Action Approval of Incentive Compensation Using Health System
Operating Revenues for Fiscal Year 2016-17 for Executive Vice
President – UC Health, Office of the President as Discussed in
Closed Session

H4 Discussion Affiliation for Advisory Services in China, Los Angeles Campus

H5 Discussion Clinical Quality Dashboard for University of California
Medical Centers

On a Title IX veto see:


"Gov. Jerry Brown on Saturday signed a law that will require the University of California to be more transparent in how it reports costs and how it deals with the state auditor, a measure that was introduced in the wake of a scathing audit of the UC president's office this spring. The audit found that the UC Office of the President failed to disclose up to $175 million in budget reserve funds, even as the system looked to lawmakers and tuition hikes for more money.
Records showed that surveys sent to individual campuses as part of the audit were altered after consultation with the president's office, raising concerns of interference in the audit by the top office. The new law will prohibit UC campuses from coordinating with the president's office when the state auditor requests information."

Remaking the University with:

UC Loses More Autonomy:

"State's response continues to be based on the notion that legislators and the Regents are the most appropriate people to co-govern the university with UCOP. But as has been proven repeatedly, neither the Legislature, nor the Regents, nor the Governor nor UCOP, for that matter, has demonstrated much grasp of the educational and research practices of the University. What is needed is greater internal democracy rather than simply legislative demands. And that internal democracy should be applied to the question of how to achieve the highest academic accomplishment, not simply how to achieve the greatest savings or, as far too many local administrators seem to think, develop the latest private sector fads."...


An ex officio UC Regent challenges a multi termed UC Regent's wife for a US Senate seat, exciting:

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

A Silence That Was Not Broken At UC Davis...

In the midst of natural and unnatural disasters where help is needed- and there are ways to, there is also this UC related news:

"Here’s Hillary Clinton on stage in Davis talking about Trump, Comey, fake news"

Hillary Clinton Breaks Silence On Harvey Weinstein Sexual Assault Reports"
"Until Tuesday afternoon, Clinton had been notably silent on the matter. She didn’t mention Weinstein, who has donated and helped raise large sums for the Clintons and the Democratic Party, on Monday at a book tour event at the University of California, Davis ― her first public appearance since the news broke."

- the political donations can flow to and from both sides, hedged bets by contributing to both or all political parties running... all sides... the idealist would say outrage should be non partisan etc (see Tapper, Kimmel apropos comments on that etc)
One of her former staff at State wrote this:

A current UC Berkeley doctoral student was one of the first to speak out, very early on
"Will USC Accept Harvey Weinstein's Women's Program Donation? | Hollywood Reporter - The Hollywood Reporter"

Petition Calls for USC to Reject Harvey Weinstein's $5M Women's Program Donation
Hollywood Reporter"

HRC also made a speech at Stanford, too-

"At Stanford, Hillary Clinton discusses the perils of technology | Stanford News - Stanford University"

But skipped Berkeley...

UC Regents with multiple ties to the film industry, they've also remained silent on the news that broke last week..

Friday, October 6, 2017

That Dean's Book Junket, more...

Presented simply as two-sided:
"On one side, there are increased demands to censor hateful, disrespectful, and bullying expression and to ensure an inclusive and nondiscriminatory learning environment. On the other side are traditional free speech advocates who charge that recent demands for censorship coddle students and threaten free inquiry."...

"In his new book" ...
See the admin sponsor of book junket tied to a chancellor themed year: here.

In contrast,
A much more of a sophisticated take on it here, in this report- where UC Berkeley recent events comes up in the last third of the story, analysis:


And there's:

Are they saying UCLA was the point of origin/funding for splintering the power of the student vote? Here

Thursday, October 5, 2017

UCSC and UCLA come up in Administrative Resistance to NLRB rules?!

"This University Suggested International Students Could Be Reported to ICE if They Unionized"

"The misinformation continued at the University of Oregon, University of California Santa Cruz, and UCLA, where administration spokespeople alleged that international students would forfeit their visas if they joined impending strikes, releasing statements with language similar to Washington University’s FAQ. The statements provoked strong reactions from union leadership; the strike at University of Oregon, which began as a dispute over sick leave, ended in a victory for the workers. While retaliation on the basis of visa status is definitively illegal according to the NLRB, these past intimidation tactics may offer a taste of future resistance from private university administrations in the event of a strike."

Is that :encouraging oh Can...?, or not?

More Austerity Cover Ups? 'Teach the Budget' vs 'Don't teach the budget"? And those campus assessments and UC PATH...

New law, born of UC scandal, will punish interference with audits
"Much of the secret money came from “assessments” on individual campuses to finance system-wide programs. The diversions, Howle said, had been increased even in years when the president’s office had not spent all of the money from prior years. And when pressed, she reported, Napolitano had been unable to say how the money had been spent."

New law, which targets UC, will punish interference with state audits

Did all the $ campus assessments go to funding UC PATH?
"UCLA fully supports the UCPath initiative, and your attention to UCPath deliverables is imperative for a successful transition. Based on your feedback, we believe that additional time to prepare for the go-live at UCLA is essential and has the benefit of helping all organizations on campus and in UCLA Health Sciences achieve the necessary readiness to be successful. Once UCLA’s go-live date is determined, that information will be provided to you."

Cal compilation of attempts at austerity cover ups-
The latest one-- moving from 'teach the budget' to 'don't teach or talk about that damn budget'?? :
"These were the questions that we originally wanted to pose and perhaps begin to answer. But as soon as we started looking for some basic figures to inform our thinking, we found ourselves facing a more urgent and troubling problem. We made an inquiry to the budget specialist of the social sciences division asking for a broad picture of the budget but received no response. Instead, we found our motives questioned by the dean herself, presumably because our inquiry had been perceived as a threat or as inappropriate. It seems that the dean’s office saw us not as concerned students hoping to understand the budgetary constraints and priorities that shape our everyday academic experience but rather as suspicious intruders eager to tarnish the division’s image. Leaving such strange suspicion aside, our concern is this: If an email inquiry to the staff of our own division is a dead end for accessing basic figures, then how is anyone supposed to make sense of how and why the decisions that determine such things as class size, faculty hires, and the very existence of interdisciplinary centers and programs are made?

Of course, non-transparency about the budget is almost traditional at UC Berkeley. Thus, in an interview with The Daily Californian, Chief Financial Officer Rosemarie Rae attempted to distinguish the new administration by proclaiming its “open and transparent” approach to campus finance. But our (non-)encounter with the social sciences division suggests to us that nothing has changed.

It is not just that efforts toward transparency have"...

Jerry Brown's California Dream: The Rolling Stone Interview
The governor has created a climate-resistant, economically supercharged state – is this the blueprint for a more progressive America?

California has highest poverty rate of all US states, new report finds


Available here:

Monday, October 2, 2017

Austerity and those FSM stunts; UC Regents' 'power to effect statute' ;and students' representation

"Supreme Court shuts door on challenge to UC policy on immigrant tuition"

"Because the regents are not state legislators, Judicial Watch argued, they have no power to enact state laws."

Then this week on a UCSD case, this dev:
..."Specifically, she contends the complaints at issue implicated violations of the Regents' conflict of interest, near relative, code of conduct, whistleblower, and nondiscrimination policies, which have the effect of statutes."...


"New law punishes people who interfere with state audits"
"In June, the regents hired former state Supreme Court Jusice Carlos Moreno to investigate the alleged tampering. No findings have been released, and the president’s office did not respond to a request for an update. Nor did the office respond to a request for comment about the new law."

"Laws Against Audit-Tampering by State Workers Tightened"
"Napolitano’s staff wasted weeks of the auditor’s time by delaying production of documents and accurate figures, Howle said. When auditors finally got the documentation they had requested, Howle said the work was inaccurate and that UC accountants did not even know how much money was reserved. It was through investigation of these errors that the slush fund was discovered.

The misstep that brought one California legislator to call for Napolitano’s resignation and led to several pieces of legislation – including AB 562 – dealing with obstruction of audits, since Napolitano’s staff was also accused of doctoring surveys sent to the UC campuses requesting feedback about the efficacy of the president’s office.

While the campuses were directed to send responses to the auditor, Napolitano’s office instead collected them. Some campuses followed the auditor’s request, but final versions of the surveys sent by the Napolitano’s office contained altered responses – including changes of responses from “dissatisfied” to “satisfied”."

Grad students served as UCSA leadership representation to UC Regents last two years and also as UC student regent representation-- now a splintering off, leaving Undergrad representation on the UC Regents board in a sorry/unrepresented state?:

- current student regents,over past few years and currently, are exclusively from the professional schools at UC campuses'...
- Undergrad pop now relegated to solely student advisors roles and marginalized statement to regents at the tail end of UC regents meetings?

Undergrad students advanced forward : these professional and grad school level student regent and designates...
And then the grad students leave UCSA.
.. and then: claiming their interests are marginalized or is it more about Independence, or power grab?

But maybe there's common cause on some issues:

And there's:

Student Workers Decry ‘Large’ UC Employee Pensions

Are UC admin FSM stunts an effort to distract attention away from their austerity moves?
Don't miss:
"Berkeley Disconnect"
"One classic case of the damage brought about by privatization-driven austerity was revealed amidst the hubbub over free speech week at Berkeley. While most attention was focused on the spectacles of Shapiro and Yiannopoulos, the Daily Cal reported that the Christ administration is proposing to end the funding for the tremendously successful Berkeley Connect program as part of its budget cutting plans.

Berkeley Connect is an innovative program that provides academic mentoring to undergraduates and fellowship support to graduate students. Undergraduates who join the program are linked with a graduate student adviser who helps them navigate their academic experience. Students take part in small discussion groups and workshops, and pursue a specially designed curriculum. Students overwhelmingly praise the program and it has been shown to improve their academic performance. Over 10,000 have participated. Even though the program had its campus support cut last year from $2M to $1M dollars it still was able to support 1200 undergraduates while providing 29 graduate fellowships."..."To be sure, the particular brutalism of Berkeley's imposition of austerity is not due to the campus leadership alone. UCOP is demanding the pace of deficit reduction and therefore making it more difficult to balance the budget without affecting innovative educational programs. But when the campus announces that they have decided to exclude fellowships from the chopping block and then turns around and makes a decision that will cut nearly 30 graduate fellowships, one has to wonder about how believable the administration's claims really are."...

Then there's this 'my boss is great' and not gonna talk about the full financial costs of those recent events , an op ed from the new Berkeley Law Dean here

Sunday, October 1, 2017

Which Ball?

Football so much at the front of coverage, but some interesting b ball coverage highly relevant to UC, higher ed:
"The Feds Could Fix College Sports. But They’re Playing For The Wrong Team.
An antitrust suit against the NCAA’s price-fixing amateur model would benefit players — and rid college sports of the worst corruption that plagues them"
..."It’s not hard to see how the NCAA’s black market gives rise to the sort of financial crimes being alleged by the federal government. Eliminate the black market and the worst of those crimes will go away. In 2009, former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon sued the NCAA, alleging that its rules prohibiting athletes from profiting off their names, images and likenesses violated federal antitrust law. Under the sort of system O’Bannon envisioned, athletes would have been free to share in revenues from jersey sales, shoe deals and other image-related endorsement contracts.

And had O’Bannon prevailed in full, the precise activity that has an Adidas executive "...

Are the leagues that different from each other?
The coach of a team owned by a newly appointed but unconfirmed UC regent, covered by UD : here

He also
--spoke recently at Cal and frequently in the alumni magazine...


If you must on latest 'opportunists on all sides thirsty for UC platform' / Free Speech coverage, there's:

The 'naive professors' framing here:

Another Chancellor message out on it, with opportunity for readers to leave comments:

Thursday, September 28, 2017

UC Regents' Norms , again...

A couple days ago Variety posted this, it pertains to UC Regent Pattiz:
PodcastOne Employee Says He Was Told to Inflate Download Numbers

"Mr. Hernandez was fired for stealing intellectual property from PodcastOne — a theft he has admitted to committing,” said PodcastOne’s attorney, Marvin Putnam. “We have no idea why he was fired from his latest employer. We do know, however, that Mr. Hernandez only brought this ridiculous lawsuit after we let him know that we were going to sue him for his thievery. We would also recommend that Mr. Hernandez watch a little less ‘Westworld"

This morning SF Gate posted this:
Suit accuses UC Regent Norman Pattiz of brandishing gun at employee

"In a statement, Pattiz responded: “This guy must be crazy. I’ve never met alone with him. I didn’t hire him or fire him. I barely know who he is."...

Merc has this: "UC Regent brandished weapon at employee, lawsuit alleges
PodcastOne executive Norman Pattiz has denied the allegations."

"lawyer for Hernandez, Robert Reichman, called Putnam’s claim that he stole intellectual property “false.”

“Mr. Hernandez hasn’t admitted to any such nonsense,” he said, characterizing the assertion as “further terrorizing” of his client.

Pattiz has served on the Board of Regents since 2001, when he was appointed by then-Gov. Gray Davis. He was reappointed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2014 to a 12-year term.

UC did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the lawsuit."

Also remember that policy on regents changed:

In part as a result of, see Daily Cal: "Lozano added that current UC Board of Regents policies do not address the actions of members outside of university business but that she would work to introduce new policies that solve this.

“We cannot tolerate behavior that violates the University’s Statement of Ethical Values,” Lozano said in the email."

And see:

The McDonald podcast stuff from last year details : here
And then even more : here as well

Folks don't seem particularly interested in covering the detail of what happens at UC Regents meetings lately but...
An interesting thing happened... what Pattiz and Blum discussed during the last ten minutes of the UC Regents public engagement committee meeting this month-- they had a bit of a tiff over when and where and how the SEC steps in to review an agency and how that is or is not like the state auditor CSA audit of UC--
Blum made angry remarks against the state auditor and accused the state legislature of encroaching on UC, he made these comments after two hours of committee presentations and regent discussion with staff and other regents to brainstorm how they could improve outreach and collegiality with the CA legislature and other non UC affiliated Californians...Pattiz tried to counter Blum's negative statements and moderate or tone down things but then it devolved into a rare heated exchange between the two.

And then at the very end there is a hot mic moment: Blum turns to the UCSF chancellor and says that "Janet" talked with him (paraphrasing) about the power grab the CA leg is attempting, engaged in- you can hear this all in the last half hour and particularly the last two minutes of this UC regents clip:

Update: (is this a CPRA issue?) the regents have now edited out the hot mic content, but you can still hear it via this non UC regent archive maintained by Prof. Mitchell at: the hot mic happens at the 1:37:30 time mark
-Mitchell also makes passing reference to it here

- btw during this meeting and others Pattiz also makes mention of his trustees/ advisor/partnerships type of connections to other Higher Ed systems like USC and recently he dropped his convo or dealings with Harbaugh at UMich into the UC regents meetings discussions...

Part of Critical University Studies (CUS) claim is that it models after legal studies case method analysis, right?
But legal studies does not in the analysis view certain unfortunate cases as aberration-scandal etc right?
It views cases as possible data point indicators, right?
Something to think about while reading a pioneer in CUS:
Doghouse Pension Politics

And once again:

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Reaction as Visionary-or Saw nothing, spending as planning

Student, faculty and UCOP letters to the editor on UC golden gilded parachute retirement plans for certain employees, can be read here:
"A former UC president's incredibly tone-deaf defense of his $357,000 pension"

"Berkeley’s Leader Saw Hints That ‘Free Speech Week’ Was a Stunt. Here’s Why She Planned for It Anyway."
"...last week Chancellor Carol Christ was coming to doubt that he ever actually intended to go through with the event."..
"Now that Free Speech Week has fizzled, she said in an interview on Tuesday that she remains unconvinced."...

"Last week, Ms. Christ said, it became clearer and clearer the event was a “fiction,” following a series of deadlines missed by the sponsoring student group, disavowals from promised speakers who said they had been listed without their knowledge, and general confusion and miscommunication. "..."
Ms. Christ doesn’t know what to make of it all. She said the goal could have been to create called an “attractive narrative for the alt-right” — an episode that would end either with the university canceling the speech or perhaps with a riot that would force law enforcement to intercede. The former result would provide grist for Mr. Yiannopoulos’s portrayal of Berkeley as antipathetic to free expression; the latter would feed his critiques of the “violent left.”

Ms. Christ has started to think of the event as a counterpoint to another

-- this does not sound like she had a handle of it. It goes on:

"What was the object was whatever digital event could be created from this extraordinarily strange set of circumstances,” Ms. Christ told The Chronicle. “And what was the shadow was anything real.”

‘Extraordinary Resources’

Ms. Christ is by no means alone in wondering whether Free Speech Week was a mirage

--And she plays into the game on what gets out under the heading of 'conservative' whereas her earlier comments when interviewed by local press she made important distinctions
"In the lead-up to the event, Mr. Mogulof repeatedly said the Patriot had missed several deadlines to sign contracts that would have allowed it to rent indoor spaces.

Ms. Christ, however, said the administration had continued to work with the group because she felt it was necessary to show that Berkeley was willing to host a conservative speaker. Canceling the event prior to the appearance by Mr. Shapiro would have fed the narrative that the university was hostile to conservative views. "

'She also said she wished the university had had policies in place to respond to some of the initial concerns with Free Speech Week, such as the student group’s plan to host the event over four days.

“There’s something wrong with our policies,” Ms. Christ said, “if you can have a very small student group make the reservations that would essentially occupy the center of campus for four days and involve such enormous expense.”"

--Shouldn't a new Cal Chancellor check such policies prior to launching a publicity stunt titled so called Year of Free Speech? She courted this by doing that:

"Those might come into play again. The Berkeley Patriot has invited Mr. Yiannopoulos to return in April, Mr. Macris said. Ms. Christ, though, said it’s hard to take Mr. Yiannopoulos at his word.

Then she sounds like she is talking to a child here:
We have all learned about a very different game with the Milo event that I certainly didn’t anticipate,” she said. “With everything that happens in life, you try to learn from it, and to an extent you know you have to understand you have limited control of what goes on in your life and you try to make the best decisions you can.” - that sounds like student advisor level counseling...
It goes on:
"In recent days, Ms. Christ, who became chancellor this year, has been assailed on one side by Mr. Yiannopoulos’s camp for creating an environment and a set of logistical hurdles that made it impossible for him to stage Free Speech Week the way he had hoped.
On the other side, she has faced criticism from some faculty members


That is a reference to this:
"Berkeley Faculty Association has written an op-ed that raises important questions about the relationship between free speech, academic freedom, and political attacks on the university. As the BFA notes:"

Then there's
Dirks on his $434,000+ reg salary while on leave, sabbatical now has this in UK about free speech on campus:

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Quack and Quit?

IHE on the possible displacement of (traditional) medicine when:
"Does $200 Million Quack?
Medical researchers say UC Irvine is advancing junk science by taking funds from wealthy donors who favor nontraditional therapies."
LA Times:
"Facing criticism, UC Irvine scrubs 'homeopathy' from its roster of offered treatments"
"As it happens, UCI didn’t succeed in scrubbing all mentions of this quack remedy from its website. At the moment, it appears on the web page of Dayna Kowata, a naturopath and acupuncturist associated with UCI’s Susan Samueli Center for Integrative Medicine. Kowata’s page says homeopathy is Kowata’s “preferred mode of treatment.” (Thanks to naturopathy debunker Britt Marie Hermes for the catch."
..."Yet homeopathic treatments have been offered under UCI’s aegis as recently as last week, and conceivably since the Susan Samueli Center was established. Is UCI entirely comfortable with that situation? If it is, why would it scrub the reference to homeopathy from its website?"

Now on to...
There was no mention in the very spotty coverage of the UC Regents (held at UCSD) Meeting this month of the fact that immediate past UC Regents chair Monica Lozano will be leaving the board of UC Regents in November of this year to take a position on a board with ties to another former regent Russ Gould.
Congrats but this raises real questions about how she has passed off the baton to new chair Kieffer, Lozano went up to Sacto in recent months and made all sorts of compliance promises to the CA leg in response to CSA audit findings and on how a number of UC policies and projects will go forward. She is leaving a twelve year term she told the CA Senate rules committee that she was committed to serving --the full term and bringing her past UC regent experience to bear several long term intractible UC problems. Solving now that she has the chair position on her resume behind her- she is leaving?

Lozano was appointed by Governor Davis in 2001 for a 12 year term which expired in 2013. She was re-appointed by Governor Brown in 2014 to a term ending in 2022.

Her new position PR is here:
- the announcement that her new position would mean leaving her current UC regents position was only made verbally at this month's UC regents meeting during a board session...

And Gould just wrote this in Sac Bee:
California colleges are turning away students. It’s time to rethink funding for UC and CSU

"While the first casualty has been to student access, the zigzag pattern also produces problems within UC and CSU in terms of managing costs, anticipating and properly paying for fixed expenses, and putting more money where it needs to go to pay for student success. The institutions have shifted disproportionately to part-time faculty to handle the workload, it has become increasingly difficult for students to graduate on time, and investments in maintenance and repair have been particularly hard hit.

Real, sustained fiscal reform is needed, and there are no silver bullets. The “free college” idea that is getting a lot of play is not fiscally realistic: buying out tuition revenues would cost billions of dollars that quite simply aren’t available."...

-what transpired (bad audits, over budget projects, retirement contribution holidays etc etc) during a given UC Regents' tenure is important to consider as they write opinion pieces based on their UC regents tenure...

UC Problems with Survey Methods?--Now a tool for promoting negative bias against college students? More.

First as a was that UC admin tampering with CSA surveys...
Then its admin survey work with cost overrun on originally budgeted $220 million but now $1 Billion dollar UC PATH project outta may not remember the Campus surveys UCOP used to monitor campus progress, so there is a link to that CSA report
included, as refresher, with additional analysis, here:
"Based on typical UC campus costs and extrapolating, the cost of providing an LMS for every UC campus for 20 years is likely $66 – $99 million
Using EDUCAUSE Core Data of $96 – $110 per student median spend in the US, the costs of centralized instructional technology support of all applications and services for every UC campus for 20 years is likely $500 – $850 million
The fallout from UCPath’s cost overruns and loss of planned savings likely exceeds the entire combined instructional technology budget for all 10 UC campuses. This project matters

- but we digress...
Let's get back to this other concern...
Have the surveying problems now seeped into academic research?
Let's read a bit to try to understand...
Now, with more on the 'its junk science'-- 'is it 'anti-snowflake' propaganda?', or 'built in negative bias against college students survey methods?', 'just sloppy?', or accurate, true?

See Inside High Education article:

"Students and Free Speech: Was Study Valid?
Survey that attracted attention with its findings on student attitudes on First Amendment and violence turns out to have been opt-in, leading experts to criticize it as, in the words of one, “junk science.”

"In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, he acknowledged that the survey was opt-in and that there could be no assurance that the sample was representative. He said that the makeup of survey participants in various ways (party identification, gender, attendance at various kinds of colleges) pointed to what he said was the likely reliability of his data. But he said that nothing in his article was untrue, even if he didn't include that the survey was opt-in. "I was very careful with language," he said.
He also acknowledged that many experts in the field and journalists tend to pay little attention to opt-in surveys.
Asked if he regretted not including that detail, he said he always engages in "Monday morning quarterbacking" after he publishes articles, but said he wasn't willing to say he had made a mistake.
Villasenor said he plans to submit a more scholarly version of his article to a law review, and that he did plan to note the opt-in nature of the results in that piece."

Then read this piece in WaPo:

"Could everyone please stop freaking out about college students, please?
Some thoughts on that survey claiming college students are hostile to free speech."

"That’s a heckuva consensus you’ve put together, Beltway pundits. I’m just not sure it is either fair or accurate."

That Brookings report caused a lot of cookie cutter conclusion type coverage, content, much without reference to questions on methodologies:

And there are other pieces floating around with titles like:

"Millennials are snowflakes here's the data to prove it"

"Survey: 44% of College Students Say Hate Speech Not Protected in First Amendment"

"Survey: Only 39 Percent of College Students Know That Hate Speech Is Protected Speech"

"Survey Confirms What Many Suspected: Free Speech Is in Trouble"

"Students idiots on free speech? Look to their professors and politicians"

"How Far College Students Would Go to Stop a Controversial Speaker"

"Why don't college students know anything about the First Amendment?"

"College men far more supportive of shoutdowns and violence against speakers: survey"

"We must teach our kids how to disagree"

And a lot more just like that...

There's also:
Clarence Page: "Some students tolerate too much intolerance"
You can find out there..

"MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with some bad news for the First

"According to a national poll of 1,500 college students, about one in five
think it`s OK to use violence if you don`t like what a public speaker has
to say. If you believe it is disgusting or hateful. These students
believe you have a right to use violent means to silence such views.

Well, many more of the students surveyed in this national poll – half in
fact – said it`s all right to create so much disruption in the room, such
unearthly havoc, that a speaker can`t even be heard.

The partisan break down for such views is disturbing. Democratic college
students are more likely to say it`s OK to disrupt the public speech that
defends them. Men are more likely than women to say disrupting a public
meeting in order to silence the speaker is OK. Men are more likely than
women to back the use of outright violence to silence words they consider

Well, back when I was in school, it was those in the liberal side or on the
left who defended free speech, defended the right of even communists to
speak their views without violence or disruption. Freedom of speech is a
basic right. We know that. It`s in the Bill of Rights for that good
reason, to protect those with unpopular views.

Popular views are easy to defend. Unpopular views are not. That`s why we
have this Constitution. Boy."



Any flashbacks on :
"linking arms and forming a human chain .... This is not non-violent civil disobedience."

Then those images during football this : last Sunday, Monday?
CNN on America's team coverage of it includes:
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."

UC Berkeley comes up repeatedly in that Georgetown talk:

The lyric asks a question
"Oh says does that"..."yet wave?"
Perhaps to remind us of US.

Sunday, September 24, 2017

UC pensions and student tuition hikes- and those margins...

UC is handing out generous pensions, and students are paying the price with higher tuition

"Under the standard formula — 2.5% of the highest salary times the number of years worked — Yudof’s pension would be just over $45,000 per year, according to data provided by the university.

But Yudof negotiated a separate, more lucrative retirement deal for himself when he left his job as chancellor of the University of Texas to become UC president in 2008.

“That’s the way it works in the real world,” Yudof said in a recent interview with The Times.

The deal guaranteed him a $30,000 pension if he lasted a year. Two years would get him $60,000. It went up in similar increments until the seventh year, when it topped out at $350,000.

Yudof stepped down as president after five years, citing health reasons. Under the terms of his deal, his pension would have been $230,000. But he didn’t immediately leave the university payroll.

First, he collected his $546,000 president’s salary during a paid “sabbatical year” offered to former senior administrators so they can prepare to go back to teaching. The next year he continued to collect his salary while teaching one class per semester, bringing his tenure to seven years and securing the maximum $350,000 pension.

In 2016 he got the standard 2% cost-of-living raise, resulting in his $357,000 pension.

Asked if he was worth all the money, Yudof said it would be more appropriate to ask the members of the university’s Board of Regents, who agreed to the deal.

Richard C. Blum, who was chairman of the board in 2008, did not respond to requests for comment."


"Pensions involve a guess about how much the employer will have to invest today to pay a retiree a guaranteed amount later. It’s common for public officials to guess low, saving money in the short term, and leaving their successors to figure out how to make up any shortfall.

That’s what has been happening at UC for decades, McQuillan said. “At least with a big salary, there isn’t this ticking time bomb that’s going to explode 30 years down the road.”

Like most public employee pensions — they’re rare in the private sector these days due to the cost — UC’s is funded through regular paycheck contributions from employers and employees. The money is invested in stocks, bonds and real estate around the world with the hope that it will grow enough over time to cover the guaranteed payments in retirement.

As is often the case, the UC pension fund’s financial trouble didn’t begin when there was too little money; it began when there was too much.

In 1990, after years of strong investment returns, university officials determined the fund had accumulated more than it would owe retirees into the foreseeable future. So they took what was supposed to be a temporary “holiday” from making contributions to the fund. They let employees do the same.

The policy was popular and difficult to overturn even as the fund started slipping into the red.

By the time contributions were reinstated in 2010, the fund had fallen billions of dollars behind.

Since then, university administrators have been scrambling to catch up, borrowing and transferring $4 billion from other university accounts to plow into the pension fund. They also raised the minimum retirement age from 50 to 55.

In 2015, Gov. Jerry Brown offered a $436-million gift of state taxpayer funds in exchange for an agreement from UC President Janet Napolitano to cap the amount of salary that can be used to calculate a pension at $117,000 — a move that will save money decades from now, but does little in the short term.

The deal also required Napolitano to offer new employees the choice of a defined contribution plan.

Despite all these efforts, UC’s pension hole hasn’t shrunk since 2010; it has grown by billions, according to the university’s most recent valuation. That’s because the return on investments has not kept pace with the growth in staff, salaries and departing employees’ pension payments. This year’s stock market gains will help but have not yet been included in the published valuations.

As the university struggles to deal with the problem, Napolitano’s office has become a jealous guardian of pension information.

In December, the nonprofit California Policy Center sent a public records request to UC for an update of a 2014 spreadsheet listing pension payments to the university’s retirees. A school administrator responded with an email saying UC had provided the previous spreadsheet as a “courtesy” and was no longer willing to do so.

When the nonprofit pressed — the information is indisputably public under the law, and other California government agencies routinely provide pension data without delay — the administrator sent an email claiming that the employee who created the 2014 spreadsheet had since retired and nobody could find the query he had used to extract the information from a larger database.

“They lost the computer program? That’s not my problem,” said Craig P. Alexander, a Dana Point attorney representing the nonprofit. The university finally turned the pension data over in May, but only after the Alexander threatened to sue.

Napolitano’s staff also initially refused when The Times requested the pension information in February. It took until June for them to provide usable data — which showed the dramatic rise in six-figure pension payments and revealed for the first time the full amount of Yudof’s pension."


"Janet Napolitano: Law Must Serve the Marginalized"
". “At times like these, we must do more than lament the assault on intrinsic American values or the violations of civil rights we see around us,” she said. “It is incumbent upon us to use our expertise and skills as lawyers to take meaningful action — to stop injustice in its tracks, to protect the most vulnerable, and to serve our communities when they need us most.”"

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Cal adminstration courted a set- up?

“Wait, whoah, hold on a second,” wrote a clearly surprised Mogulof. “What, exactly, are you saying? What were you told by MILO Inc? Was it a set-up from the get-go?”

“Yes,” came Wintrich’s one-word response.
Parts of UC faculty, others view it this way for various reasons, but here is one view point that details it out:

"But finally the most shameful thing about Chancellor Christ’s scheme is its own intellectual vacuity." See:


"Mogulof said the events that had been proposed, if not backed by a student group would need to comply with guidelines for outdoor campus events.

Those include a requirement that the events be “academically driven.” Yiannopoulos’s plans, Mogulof said, would not meet that standard.

He is, however, allowed to speak on the public campus as a private citizen."
Some more of the coverage:

AP updates here as well:
Campus update on ‘Free Speech Week’

Saturday, Sept. 23

The student organization Berkeley Patriot has indicated through its outside legal counsel that they have canceled all events due to take place from Sept. 24-27.

The situation is evolving and we will continue to provide information on our update website, especially about campus security measures. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

-- but some folks won't feel so patient and understanding, all sorts of biz impacted etc. This comment is likely going to hold true but might show up in different ways: "Note: Despite the threat of a lawsuit against Berkeley, look for the reverse to happen to recover the university's costs."


And, unfortunately, the most prominent 24 hour cable news networks' pundits continue in their real time coverage- to cite: that highly questionable survey as fact...

Friday, September 22, 2017

Fiasco and Junk Science, more

At this article

There's this: "Editor's note
Sept. 22, 2017
Since NPR published this story, it's come to our attention that significant questions have been raised about the methodology of a survey quoted in this report. We've removed references to the survey, which was conducted by a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. You can read more about the questions surrounding the survey here."

It points to this: "'Junk science': experts cast doubt on widely cited college free speech survey
Survey saying 20% of US college students believe it’s appropriate to use violence against offensive speech was administered to an opt-in online panel"
And includes:
"The way the survey results have been presented are “malpractice” and “junk science” and “it should never have appeared in the press”, according to Cliff Zukin, a former president of the American Association of Public Opinion Polling, which sets ethical and transparency standards for polling.

John Villasenor, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of California Los Angeles, defended his survey as an important window into what he had called a troubling atmosphere on American campuses in which “freedom of expression is deeply imperiled”. Villasenor, a cybersecurity expert, said this was the first public opinion survey he had conducted.

However, his survey was not administered to a randomly selected group of college students nationwide, what statisticians call a “probability sample”. Instead, it was given to an opt-in online panel of people who identified as current college students.

“If it’s not a probability sample, it’s not a sample of anyone, it’s just 1,500 college students who happen to respond,” Zukin said, calling it “junk science”." See the full article.

Speaking of Brookings ...
it looks like today Napolitano also part of this:

- as part of her time in DC...
But she was not on this higher ed panel:

-Brookings--It might even give flashbacks of her talks there with a recent now former UCD chancellor ...

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Odd details pop up in some of the coverage

A good long read and informative- This in depth article:

And other coverage

'Fair Wage Fair Work' at UC, and new Title IX audit and discussion at UC Regents Meeting

Reposting the archive of the UC Regents compliance and audit committee session because the regents put out an archive of it that deleted a very important section,then they took down the archive for a few days and now it is reposted apparently now with the deleted content now included and now matching the captioning- you can now view that section starting at the 17 minute mark, see again with this new link:

This is the original now disabled link to the incomplete content:

None of this is explained at the regents web pages, site- and yes it is all a bit galling in light of CHE puff pieces on such matters,
On this topic also see:
"The reference on archiving caught the eye of yours truly, who continues to note that the Regents do not really archive the recordings of their meetings. They post them for only one year. Yours truly, in contrast, does archive them - at considerable time cost. So we ask for the umpteeth time, why - if the Regents are now putting their meetings on YouTube for just one year - they can't just leave them their indefinitely? How about the UC Regents stepping into the 21st century in that regard? The only answer we have ever gotten regarding the one-year rule is that CSU does it that way. Is that a reason? Let CSU be CSU. Bad practice there is no excuse for bad practice at UC."

-and we add in here that position comes with a $250,000 salary and perks... And the missing content now posted also includes comment from Regent Perez that he did not receive from UC Regents staff the 'meeting materials' on a certain campus involved in the audit of the FWFW policy...

Cal Chancellor Speech In The Campus Budget, Expenditures, and other items

UC leadership decision to fund -in the millions- what they deem worthy...
While at the same time ratcheting up their own politically provocative comments against their political opponents

And if one is going to announce a planned Year of Free Speech shouldn't one also make contingency plans based on past campus experience (s) in advance?
Is causing UC community to question UC leadership moves on funding and how it might negatively impact campus interests:

See the ways it comes up in:
..."The mounting costs to the campus — which is struggling to reduce a crippling budget deficit from $150 million last year to $56 million by June — are sparking growing concern.

Berkeley has shelled out at least $1.4 million in security costs since February,"...

And Daily Cal:

"the campus will foot the estimated $600,000 security bill for Ben Shapiro to spout unoriginal and unnuanced opinions in one of the biggest venues on campus, it should at least continue to fund, if not expand, Berkeley Connect."

And create very bad optics in light of:

Promises of reforms may come too late: "Christ said she wanted to acknowledge the “uncertainty and peril” that students who are Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients face and how the imminent “Free Speech Week” will affect many individuals in vulnerable communities.

In an unexpected move, Christ announced that the administration will be working to change the policies that “currently allow” events such as Free Speech Week to happen — a declaration that was met with booming applause.

“Once Free Speech Week ends, we have to come together as a community and think hard about our policies,” Christ said to the audience.

- such optics hamstrung, pigeonholed Birgeneau, Dirks, and UCOP leadership before.
That interview Napolitano gave DC yesterday ,see immediate last post for yesterday's coverage, now gets covered by IHE and CHE:

SF Gate is back at listing again unconfirmed speakers as headline:

While Cal admin is back at updating on the unconfirmed as of Sept 20 Wed.:

Daily Cal tried to keep up:

-as part of that Cal event next week there is something called "Zuck2020" - is that a sign of Silicon Valley participation?

Silicon Valley and its colleges, universities 'mismatched' and out of sync

While others are asking is Silicon Valley mismatched to Democracy:

[Several interviews ( e.g this week's interview of HRC on MSNBC- Maddow) with HRC on her new book 'What Happened'- those interviewing her are confused by HRC stance on Sandberg in book while HRC also entertaining the ideas around the above. UC hypocrisy/position also something to think about in light of it's own biz relations with such platforms etc.]

- and then there are those conversations around SV and privatization of higher ed, online instruction moves to be had..
There was some public comment at UC Regents meeting where scientific concern about non traditional therapies may be displacing traditional med at UC, a chemist even handed a batch of papers w/ list examples of it at UC, the UC Gen counsel walked up to him and took his handouts he wanted the regents to see, you can find that in public comment from the first day of the UC Regents meeting.see at the 44:00 mark here:

Now this new funding at UCI comes up:

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

UCOP paying Cal's 'four times $600,000?'-And the president of the UC Regents on other things at ...Yale

See this latest:
"Napolitano said that her office, which oversees the University of California system, will take the unprecedented step of helping Berkeley cover the the "substantial" security costs. That protection is necessary to ensure free speech on campus, she said.
This will be a test for Berkeley," she said. “It’s a cost that the university is bearing to protect the speakers but also to protect the value of free speech ... But the rock and the hard place that the campus is in, is the value of free speech versus the need to protect the safety and the security of the students and the faculty.”

Napolitano said security for a recent speech by conservative author Ben Shapiro cost the school $600,000. The event this month including Bannon and planned by far right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos is expected to be four days of similar security needs, she said. She would not provide an exact figure.
"I think some of these speakers are coming deliberately to provoke, and I think to provoke a response," she said. "But nonetheless they’re coming to speak, they’re coming to put forward controversial and noxious ideas, and, you know, colleges and universities are places where noxious ideas are expressed.

"So how you carry that out, protect that value — that’s the challenge that we face," Napolitano said. "That’s why I think it’s important that if these events are going to occur, that they be done safely and securely and, I think unfortunately that means universities bear the cost.""...
See full article.

But then read this at a local paper, SFist: "Also, the university continues to push back, saying the event is welcome to go on outdoors on the steps of Sproull Hall and other spots as now planned, but student group The Berkeley Patriot failed to meet several deadlines and has lost the indoor venues they had wanted — and the university will not be subsidizing security costs as they did for last week's Ben Shapiro event, which was a one-time deal." : Here.

WaPo says they are going halfsies on costs:

And then talks DACA costs at UC a little bit on Title IX,and then mentions that Napolitano said DeVos has quite a vertical learning curve on higher education , read the article for the full quote, context.
This survey poll by a UCLA professor with Brookings ties:

Prompts this op Ed in msm:

Opinion | A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech
Washington Post

Also at WaPo:
End their piece with:
"Despite his concerns about safety if events have to be held outdoors, he said they will not give up on the event, or trying to get the most controversial speakers. That is the type of speech most in need of protection, he said.

“No one will riot if Shapiro comes,” he said. “They’ll riot if Bannon comes.”

Daily Cal: has this latest.

And the NBC Bay area details out so many areas of backtracking by event organizers:

And the administration points students to this:

Brown at Yale, his other alma mater, on :
"“State, City, and International Efforts”
Kerry Convening” conference "Session 3: State, City and International Efforts"
Moderator: Secretary John Kerry
Mr. Jerry Brown, Governor of the State of California
Mr. Jay Inslee, Governor of the State of Washington
Dr. Jim Kim, President of the World Bank
Ms. Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris

More here:

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Flexibility or Special Treatment?

More new updates: With less than 6 days notice -apparently UC admin has now sent out a final itinerary with a new updated list of speakers *some of whom are still unconfirmed or deny their participation* and *new locations*-listed here:

"UC Berkeley says Free Speech Week is on"

See also: " Berkeley's attention turns to 'Free Speech Week'"

All that press coverage given to a non event? See:

“it would be completely wrong to call this a cancellation,” Mogulof said. As of late Friday, he said, “nothing has been scheduled. There is nothing to cancel.”

Original- earlier post:

Update on logistics for “Free Speech Week”

..."They were told on 8/11 they needed to sign and execute these contracts by 8/18. They did not. They were told on 8/22 they needed to sign and execute these contracts by 8/25. They did not. They were told, in writing, for the last time, on 9/13 that the contracts must be signed and executed by 9/15 at 5pm. They did not."...
"The campus has shown flexibility where it is allowed to do so in working with a small group that appears to be struggling to fulfill responsibilities it accepted as a result of the decisions it made. The campus cannot allow this student organization to disregard policy and thus provide it with special treatment that would not be provided to any other student organization on the Berkeley campus.

Should the student organization fail to complete the necessary steps to hold its remaining 10 reservations, there is absolutely nothing to prevent them from seeking to reschedule the events they hoped to host for a later date so that they can fully comply with the policies that apply to them and their peers."

Remember in Politico UC Berkeley characterized like this: "UC Berkeley assistant vice chancellor for communications Dan Mogulof told POLITICO Tuesday that the student organization ... — whose membership is estimated by Mogulof at between 5-10 members "

UCB says "no regrets" on the $600,000"?:


This LAT op ed quibbles on part of the provost's statement: "UC Berkeley is sending mixed messages about freedom of speech"

-One might be of the opinion that paper didn't give significant/comprehensive coverage of what happened at this September UC Regents meeting (which was held closer to their neck of the woods at UCSD, which their Times Trib folks could have also covered...??) - but who did?
DB tapped out a bit of coverage of the UC Regents meeting:
UC Regents recap – Sept. 13

UC regents recap – Sept. 14

Friday, September 15, 2017

Bitter peels?

She doesn't get into the details of what is happening on campus real time,but has this at a conference:

"Napolitano spoke at a conference promoting "civil discourse" attended by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in a section of the federal courthouse called the Kennedy Learning Center. Kennedy, a Sacramento native, said in opening remarks that he fears “the idea of free speech is slipping away from our young people” in an increasingly polarized nation.
“The answer to a wrong or insulting or immoral idea is more speech, not less,” he said. Universities, in particular, Kennedy said, “must step up to the plate and insist that there's a place for thoughtful ... robust disagreement.”"

But Justice Kennedy doesn't say what young people should do when these costs hit campus budgets??:

"Price Tag to Protect Speech at Berkeley: $600000"
New York Times

"The cost of free speech isn't cheap at UC Berkeley"

Even for events with unconfirmed speakers, details like contract for facilities etc. almost to the moment the event is to take place all unconfirmed, not finalized...and UC allows it...

Should their tuition dollars go to the drip drip drip inconclusive administrative process that allows it? Or is it too snowflakey to expect advance planning from campus administration so the students, staff,faculty, other visitors, community etc can access services and parts of campus necessary - including for matriculation? What would Kennedy recommend to resolve that part of the problem that UC admin has the ability to control? Did that come up at that Sacto conference?

On the UCD berries saga:

"UC won. In May, after five days of trial testimony in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, a jury found that California Berry had improperly used the UC plants. But the case wasn’t over. Damages hadn’t been sorted out, and after the jury rendered its verdict the judge said he believed UC Davis was as guilty of “bad conduct” as the two scientists. Settlement negotiations ensued, leading to the agreement filed in court Friday.

University officials declined to comment on the settlement
. "


And this at UCLA
"UCLA pharmacy closed after state finds it sent out drugs with expired, potentially dangerous ingredients"

Thursday, September 14, 2017

On other things...with updates

After athletics probe, UC Berkeley under indefinite federal Title IX monitoring

UC regents give pay raises to eight chancellors

"UCSF Chancellor Samuel Hawgood was the highest paid campus leader to receive a raise. His salary will increase from $795,675 to $819,545 a year.
The others chancellors were:
•UC Irvine’s Howard Gillman, $499,550 to $514,537
•UCLA’s Gene Block, $454,574 to $468,211
•UC San Diego’s Pradeep Khosla, $449,208 to $462,684
•UC Santa Barbara’s Henry Yang, $401,020 to $413,051
•UC Merced’s Dorothy Leland, UC Riverside’s Kim Wilcox and UC Santa Cruz’s George Blumenthal, $394,655 to $406,495"
- they also get money from outside boards they serve on, usually they are asked to serve on those boards precisely because they are UC Chancellors not just subject matter expertise.. but good luck on getting a news paper to list out the true total remuneration...

University of California committee OKs $1 million bonus for CIO Jagdeep Singh Bachher
There is this on LANL:


Lawmakers OK free year of community college for all; bill goes to governor

Court leans toward allowing protesters' to sue UC administrators


UC Irvine chancellor apologizes after school rescinds admission offers
Los Angeles Times


UC to make process of verifying student admissions information more effective
University of California

University of California investment assets under management show strong gains
University of California

"University of California hints at tuition increase, starts review of overturned admissions | EdSource"


Dirks is tweeting some items he is reading or attending lately, this is one of the items:
Revolutionizing the university for the digital era - The Washington Post

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Then why not make CA community college free?

See: "California Gov. Jerry Brown and top lawmakers announced Tuesday that they plan to spend $30 million" helping young immigrants with legal services and college financial aid.

Daily Cal has it like this:

-some will see it, frame it as more about maintaining exploitable labor and beholding student populations while marginalizing CA residents interests for the sake of Corp and industry political contributors? Is it too jaded to look at it that way?

Remember $30 million came up as 'make it or break it' key figure on the CA community colleges tuition free legislation mentioned in an earlier post:

See: When it comes to affordable college education, conservative Tennessee has so-called progressive California beat

Includes: "Pending on the state Senate floor is a bill that would take a significant step toward free community college throughout California and return it to more affordable public higher educations. AB 19 would waive fees for all first-year, full-time community college students taking at least 12 units....

his bill faces a tough slog to be sent to Gov. Jerry Brown before the year’s legislative session ends Friday. It’s considered a second-tier bill — the kind that becomes a leverage tool for legislative players seeking what they consider a bigger prize. “You want that, give me this!”

Moreover, Brown’s Finance Department is opposed to the measure. Although the community college system pegs the cost at around $32 million annually, Brown’s budgeters say it could hit $50 million. That’s too risky in an iffy economy, they contend"

- that iffy economy??