Update: here's UC response/statements:
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): https://www.c-span.org/video/?433696-1/education-secretary-lady-justice-blind-campuses-today
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
- Richard Blum (AGAIN!)
- Wm. De La Pena
- Gareth Elliott
- George Kieffer
- Sherry Lansing (AGAIN!)
- Monica Lozano (AGAIN!)
- Hadi Makarechian
- Eloy Ortiz Oakley
- Norman Pattiz (AGAIN!)
- John A. Pérez
- Bonnie Reiss
- Richard Sherman
- Bruce Varner
- Charlene Zettel
- VACANT (M Anguiano?)
- VACANT (L Park?)
- UC Regents Committees
- Staff Advisors, Faculty Reps, Designates
- Ex Officio UC Regents
- UC Alumni Regents
- VACANT (E Tauscher?)
- VACANT (H Guber?)
- Paul Monge
"If the University were a business, it would likely be the largest corporation in California."
"If The University Were A Business, It Would Likely Be The Largest Corporation In California"-Regents Minutes (2010)