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??

UC Regents Investments Committee September Meeting


Academic Freedom Gets Bumped at Cal?

We were told that a new UC Berkeley calendaring system would allow admin and others to be able to view events like talks etc in convenient time blocks, peruse the list of speakers in a given time frame etc, remember?

That would seem like a basic bell-whistle-functionality, right?

So then how does this happen: "
Who Gets Rescheduled at Berkeley?
It's Not Milo"

Looks like the talks bumped are speakers who are minority, female UC faculty. (There are other talks mentioned as bumped in the comments there btw)
Which could raise its own academic freedom, even Title IX issues for the campus .

It is a reminder of the fact that even that "serious debate" Dirks claims to view as urgently necessary and that his then EVCP, provost C. Christ participated in - which also was held on the same night other similar controversial invited speakers scenario took place a few months ago - and no effort was made to memorialize/record/transcribe -the 'serious important debate' that the previous and current Cal Chancellors claim to want to engage the entire community on,- why no contingency planning to make sure other important scholarly talks are not suddenly falling down as lower priority with no means of archiving them even? Or to, from an administrative angle, plan and understand what other talks might be impacted by having to do something like this in advance?.. so, what's up?
There's endless ad nauseum content on the non academic talks which end up also archived in some form but the academic level talks/debate content goes unarchived, or is incompletely archived, no content or in depth coverage etc- it seems to be more than a trend, is it a strategy?

And this new update: apparently non academic sponsored talks can give the campus less than 12 days notice on major event/events that require high $ value logistics?

"both publicly said they will be speaking on campus during Free Speech Week, the campus cannot confirm exactly when or if they will be here.

“We have repeatedly asked representatives confirm that contracts have been completed between the student organization and each of these speakers; to date they have not,” Mogulof said in his email.

Mogulof added that information ...shared with the campus regarding the scheduling of the proposed speakers conflicts with information ...

According to Mogulof, security arrangements for the week of Sept. 24 are also unconfirmed. Rental fees for venues have not yet been paid and contracts with venues have not been signed, Mogulof said in his email.

“Simply put, the University cannot provide the security and support the student organization has requested, and the campus wants to provide, if we do not receive the essential information,” Mogulof said in his email."

So that's a perk previous classes have not enjoyed, neither as students, alumni, nor staff. But now diff policy, rules? Seems handling differently than hisorical precedent...

And UC Berkeley administration fails to spell out the "critical deadlines" they vaguely mention in their statement,here:

seems like those deadlines are pretty squishy, lax, and capable of gumming up the UC campus ops pretty easily-- or should we just look upon it as more operational excellence?

See politico for more:

In any case, Berkeley is making it's own planning decisions on all of it as well, likely costs for them in this pre-planning debacle...will they pass on those costs to UC and then UC pass it on to students as more Tuition increases?


Is Christ a place holder?:

Overview of this week UC regents meeting agenda items:

Is this the result of a now predominantly Southern Cal appointed UC Regents board influence?:

Monday, September 11, 2017

Hot dog , you don't say?!

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.

Tennessee, however, somehow manages. And its program is a lot more liberal than Santiago’s proposal because it scrubs community college tuition for all state residents who haven’t yet earned a degree.

The Tennessee Legislature is even more Republican than California’s is Democratic. Talk about supermajorities: Tennessee’s Senate is 85% Republican and its House of Representatives is 74%.

That state’s outspoken tuition-free advocate is Republican Gov. Bill Haslam, who told legislators in his January State of the State address: “Wherever you might fall on life’s path, education beyond high school is critical to the Tennessee we can be.”

That used to be California’s philosophy too.

For generations, the Golden State charged no tuition at the University of California or state universities. Everyone benefited.

Democratic Gov. Pat Brown, Jerry’s father, often gets credit in revisionist history. Truth is, tuition-free college was created under Republican governors and legislatures.

It wasn’t just some feel-good social program. It was an investment in an economic engine that produced innovators and skilled professionals to grow California’s economy. It was in the state’s self-interest to get everyone as highly educated as they could be. It helped broaden the middle class.

What happened? Tuition crept onto campuses in the 1970s and steadily climbed. The state cut back on its higher education spending because it took on other obligations: making up for lost local property taxes because of Proposition 13, expanding costly healthcare for the poor, building more prisons.

And let’s be honest: Too many university administrators enjoy blue-plate pay and perks that didn’t exist back in the tuition-free days.

So here we are: Total tuition and fees at UC are $13,950 a year. At the state universities they’re $7,151. Then tack on room, board and books.

A full-time freshman year of community college with no fees seems a good place to start reinvesting.

In total, California has 2.1 million community college students — 900,000 enrolled full time — on 114 campuses. Many transfer to four-year universities. Many learn work skills and qualify for good-paying jobs. Many just drop out.

Several community colleges already provide some free tuition, financed with private money.

But “if current trends continue,” the Public Policy Institute of California reported last week, “California will face a large skills gap by 2030. It will be 1.1 million workers with bachelor’s degrees short of economic demand. Failing to keep up with the demand … could result in a less productive economy, lower incomes and tax revenue, and greater dependence on the social safety net.”

There’s a nonsensical argument that free tuition would benefit rich kids. But rich kids rarely choose community colleges. And creating a “means test” bureaucracy to check every student’s wallet would be fiscal foolery.

“We’re trying to go back to the future — to the programs that made sense and still make sense,” Santiago says.

They currently make sense in one Southern red state and we should follow its lead."

- wonder if UC Regent Ortiz Oakley read that piece?

Napolitano Sues Trump: Dealing with DACA Termination

"Second, colleges and universities will need to do a much better job of achieving racial equality. Higher education was meant to be part of the solution to race-based discrimination, but decades of cuts and austerity have impoverished the institutions that serve the majority of students of color, starting with community colleges. For example, there is a clear correlation between grossly unequal funding and unequal graduation rates (see Stage 7 of The Great Mistake or Separate and Unequal for details). The U.S. has been trying to equalize K-12 funding across school districts for decades, though the egalitarian principle is honored in the breach, and resegregation has been spreading everywhere. Higher ed needs to get serious about embarking on its own equalization project. The educational boon would be huge. So would the political benefits for universities: they would associate themselves with inclusive social development via an equality across aggregate populations this is efficient as well as just.

Third, racially egalitarian development will be credible only if universities break with their implicit 1990s-era economic model that has helped underdevelop much of the country. I mean the Clinton-style knowledge economy, which was to deliver general prosperity and instead produced stagnant wages for three-quarters of the workforce while devolving whole regions at a time. Democrat consent to low tax dogma, supported by leaders in tech and finance, has eroded the infrastructure and public services that would have held economy and society together. At the same time, universities have made their own workforces into microcosms of the dual economy that most voters hate: faculties are divided between a shrinking tenured elite and the contingent masses who comprise about 70 percent of the instructional workforce. Administrative bloat has not stopped the same segmentation in non-teaching staff: UCSF made national news this year by outsourcing to an offshore company exactly the kind of information technology jobs that universities are supposed to prepare their students to have. For the general public to care about universities's views on economics and immigration, they will need to set a better example. "

Reading that piece reminded also of
1- some high profile UC Fac econ and labor experts in interviews sometimes comment on DACA as just a necessary population to keeps things churning, simply a means to that end...


Napolitano's framing of DACA folk as almost differently 'resilient' ,. ". They represent the best of who we are — hard working, resilient and motivated high achievers."... a now pop psych branding word has reduced, destroyed it's original meaning-- Remaking U tweet pointed to this really good piece on it:

Read the full thing in imp. Context but it included:
"Resilience as an entrepreneurial imperative
As a result, an increasing number of institutional strategies for student support, staff development and learning and teaching highlight resilience, as a way of building individual “bouncebackability.” (Try Googling “University learning teaching strategy resilience”.) While the hope is that the student will become more resilient, what this actually looks like remains increasingly ill-defined. However, it is increasingly placed in a context that prioritises narratives of employability, entrepreneurship, and the ability both to pay down one’s debts and to survive flourish in an increasingly precarious world of work. Here, good mental health and productivity are intrinsically linked, and being entrepreneurial in maintaining good mental health is imperative. In a society that prioritises surplus value over humane values, all else is a sin.
While there has been some focus on dedicated, institutional student welfare and advice teams, there is an increasing focus upon the role of academic staff in developing student resilience, for instance as personal tutors. The #stepchange policy framework of UniversitiesUK discusses staff training in mental health literacy and health promotion, allocating time and resources to staff, aligning student and staff mental health, and crucially building “mental health – and health – into staff performance” (emphasis added). The risks here to both staff and students are phenomenal, and ignore the wider, structural issues that underlie poor mental health."

And wondered about the different or similar ways these not so diverse faculty panelists might read other paragraphs in that piece on speech and race relations etc- their 'clash' may be less pronounced than some might believe/highlight, right?

Also see there some good latest links there, like:

New Koch-Backed Institute at U of Utah Raises Questions About Academic Freedom and Whether it is Designed to "Rival" Economics Department


How does this interact with UC constitutional autonomy?:
California passes bill to protect scientific data from federal censorship - The Mercury News


A UC Merced Med school? see article:

UC cancer centers align to boost research into deadly disease

37th and 15%...numbers come up in:

Then see:

The Man Running the University of California's Lean, Mean ...


University of California 'looking into' viral hot dog vendor video

- recall that that part of campus is a big non no for that stuff, common knowledge -seems it needs to be made clear (signage etc.) once again maybe??...

Friday, September 8, 2017

DACA Mirror Effect- On all sides

UC sues Trump administration over DACA decision

Daily Cal

Seems like different groups trying to do the same but diff angles

NY other states, then CA separately:

..."California's attorney general says a separate lawsuit he plans to file over the Trump administration's plan to end protections for young immigrants will mirror the legal arguments made in a suit already filed by 15 states and the District of Columbia."
More on the UC case: "Obama Official Who Created DACA Sues Trump To Protect It"

The lawsuit, which she filed in her capacity as president of the University of California system along with the regents, is in part personal to Napolitano "...
"There are roughly 4,000 undocumented immigrants who attend schools in the University of California system, and Napolitano said on a call with reporters that a large proportion of them have DACA protections ― so-called Dreamers. The state’s university system also employs undocumented teachers, healthcare workers and other staff.

The lawsuit alleges that Trump’s decision to rescind the program violates the Administrative Procedure Act and constitutional due process, including that of students at University of California schools and the system itself."...

“The administration’s approach in rescinding DACA was the opposite of reasoned decision-making and thus is unlawful,” Napolitano said. “It did not assess the costs of rescinding DACA to the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers or to the schools and communities in which they live, study and work.”...
"Napolitano’s lawsuit alleges that the Trump administration illegally neglected to follow rules outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act, which would have required more notice and a public comment period before making such a far-reaching change. Napolitano said that the situation was distinct from the creation of DACA, which did not go through a public comment period, because the program involved case-by-case determinations about prosecutorial discretion, while Trump’s decision will hit recipients en masse.

″[Rescinding DACA] doesn’t involve discretion at all,” Napolitano said. “It says that for this whole category of cases the administration will not exercise discretion and will not defer deportations. So it deals with this population and a whole category, not individuals.”

She said that DACA is also distinct from the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, or DAPA, which was blocked in the courts because of a lawsuit that alleged, in part, that the Obama administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act in creating it.

Friday’s lawsuit also argues that the Trump administration violated the due process rights of DACA recipients, which are protected by the Fifth Amendment, by “executive fiat"...


- p.s. the 'pro bono' firm working on this for the UC regents et al seems to have ties to Holder, and Holder was said to be doing some CA resistance work so maybe this is an extension of that ...possibly...

Thursday, September 7, 2017

Serious debate...

Update: here's UC response/statements:

More coverage:


Let's observe the similarities and differences between the responses -pols responses msm coverage etc-to DACA rollback/possible rollback compared to this Title IX rollback/possible rollback:

You can watch the full 30 minute speech at c span (where they surprisingly seem to editorialize by using a 'lady justice blind campuses' title but it comes from a line in the speech):

And here is some of the coverage:

Will there be Title IX serious debate? How exactly does the public input work?

THE says debate needed nationally but it's headline singles out Berkeley as the place for debate: Berkeley needs 'serious debate' on public-private future – Dirks | Times Higher Education (THE)

Berkeley must have a “serious debate” about whether it should leave the state’s world-famous higher education system and become a private institution, its former chancellor has said.

Speaking at Times Higher Education’s World Academic Summit, Professor Dirks explained that Berkeley was receiving roughly one-third of its funding from state sources when his predecessor, Robert Birgeneau, took the reins in 2004. Yet that proportion had fallen to 12 per cent when he assumed the post in 2013. It now stands at 11 per cent, at about $350 million (£268 million) – down from $500 million a decade earlier, he said.

Asked about whether Berkeley – 18th in the THE World University Rankings 2018, down from joint 10th last year – might seek to escape the political pressure and red tape that it faced as a public institution by becoming a private university, Professor Dirks said that such a potential move should be discussed “in a serious way”.

“It would cause a huge political kerfuffle, but increasingly, in the US context, there needs to be a debate that should be conducted in a serious way,” he said.

Going private would allow the university – long regarded as the jewel in the crown of California’s famous state university system – to raise more money through private philanthropy, as potential donors were worried about the university using their funds to plug budget shortfalls, Professor Dirks said.

“In my last year, I raised half a billion dollars [in philanthropic giving] – we could have raised more money if people thought we were not going to take that money and use it substitutionally,” said the emeritus chancellor, who announced his resignation in August 2016.

Becoming a private university in the manner of institutions such as Harvard or Yale might seem like a unlikely radical step, but it should not be ruled out, Professor Dirks added.

“We can no longer assume that change will only happen incrementally,” he said, because there will be other factors beyond finance that will “force great institutions like Berkeley to say we need to change something”.

As a state university, Berkeley was subject to a welter of laws that did not apply to elite private institutions, such as nearby Stanford University. One of these is the requirement to disclose staff salary levels, which makes it difficult to offer competitive salaries to world-leading research staff, said Professor Dirks.

Although recruiting outstanding junior faculty was not a problem, it was “much more difficult to recruit senior and mid-level faculty than it was even 10 years ago”, he added.

“A lot of good people do not make themselves available [when posts arise],” he said, explaining that they would “say I cannot go to California and make that money” and instead “they go to places where they earn twice as much”.

Other state bureaucratic interventions, such as limits on the number of out-of-state and international students, who pay much higher tuition fees, and new laws purportedly to uphold freedom of speech on campus, might also pose problems, Professor Dirks said. Some 14 US states had either passed or were discussing, as California is doing now, laws that would introduce a “two strikes and you’re out” disciplinary rule for students found to be obstructing free speech, he explained.

“It is taking over a university’s right to establish how to deal with student concerns and issues – at first reading it seems reasonable, but there are a number of things [about these rules] that are deeply disturbing,” he said.
Above, Dirks casts UC compensation as meager, paltry but folks still shocked by:
Also THE covered by Daily Cal:

"UC Berkeley was ranked below UCLA in Times Higher Education’s 2018 “World University Rankings,” making it the No. 2 public university in the United States, according to the list.

The World University Rankings, which ranks more than 1,000 universities from 77 countries, ranked UC Berkeley at No. 18 and UCLA at No. 15. In the 2017 rankings, UC Berkeley was ranked No. 10 while UCLA was ranked No. 14. While both UC campuses dropped in ranking this year, UC Berkeley fell further.

According to UC Berkeley spokesperson Dan Mogulof, the drop was primarily related to finances as opposed to the campus’s academic qualities.

“(T)he primary reason for this year’s change in Berkeley’s position in this particular ranking was a decrease in the level of federal research funding that flowed into campus,” Mogulof said in an email. “That funding fluctuates on an annual basis, and is determined by many factors beyond the University’s control or influence.”

An in-depth look at Times Higher Education’s World University Rankings methodology shows that institutions are assessed on five main criteria: teaching, research, citations, international outlook and industry income. Within these five areas, there are also 13 “carefully calibrated” performance indicators, according to the Times Higher Education website.

In a press release responding to the 2018 rankings, UCLA spokesperson Rebecca Kendall said UCLA consistently performs well in rankings, “regardless of methodology.”

“The ranking is based on many factors,” said UC Berkeley junior Thang Hoang. “I feel happy for (UCLA). I don’t feel hurt about it.”

In a different ranking by Times Higher Education — the 2017 “World Reputation Rankings” — UC Berkeley was placed at No. 6 and UCLA at No. 13.

“Every ranking uses different data sets and then (weighs) individual data categories differently,” Mogulof said in his email. “(W)e think it’s a good idea not to get too excited, or worked up, every time a new list is published.”"
Cal Alumni are always welcome to be part of donor community, but not always part of the community