For just a few of the odd moments to highlight so far, first see: https://www.dailycal.org/2019/04/02/complaint-filed-against-ucop-executive-for-alleged-racial-sexual-harassment-discrimination/- so then at this week uc regents meeting a strange moment in morning opening of regents thursday session when regent Lansing in reading the regents resolution on that same retiring executive currently involved in that Title IX case- Lansing, in a vouching sort of way, claimed as part of the resolution read out that "no one has a bad word to say about this person" - even as he apparently remains in a Title IX case with a URM UC employee as the complainant. UC has not given a public update on the status of the case or UC position on it as far as can tell. Is it appropriate for regents to continue to do this-there are other faculty and senior managemnt who have gone into retirement once a Title IX case (or similar other type of case) launches against them and the regents and their counterparts at the campus level go through these resolutions effusively vouching in the goodbye process. Is that appropriate?
-Was that Lansing tipping the UC investigation findings in that manner?
(or, in another way where folks are left to wonder:
-It was a shocking moment when UC workers shut down the beginning of the meeting at the end of public comments by chanting " Welcome to UCLA where darker skin gets lower pay" -that hasnt been used yet at Mission Bay..., wow.
-It was a provocative moment during Thursday board session when the faculty rep Bhavnani and the chair Perez of the regents had a testy exchange over why the chair was asking about the powers of the uc regents on their ability to end the use of SAT and other testing services in admissions decisions
and the general counsel told or confirmed to the chair all powers are absolute with this board to do anything, set policy rules with regard to UC etc
and then the faculty rep basically gave a sort of in our own extended timeframe meandering sort of response when asked about senate actions or movement on reseaching the subject- her designate seemed to be more responsive on it... Also, Regent Ortiz Oakley referenced concerns over CA legislation moves on the subject...AB 751 and the importance of regents providing to the legislature clear and timely signals on UC stance on that policy matter.
for a cleaned up version, see: "University of California aims to improve graduation rates by 2030" https://edsource.org/2019/university-of-california-aims-to-improve-graduation-rates-by-2030/617723 "The proposal unexpectedly triggered a debate among UC regents about how quickly they will get to consider eliminating standardized tests, such as the SAT and ACT, as a freshman admissions requirement. The highly controversial topic of standardized testing is being studied by a special faculty committee. That panel is expected to release its preliminary recommendation by early 2020 with the regents then taking up the issue soon after. However, several regents, including Eloy Ortiz Oakley, the chancellor of California Community Colleges, said they oppose standardized exams and expressed impatience with what they said was a go-slow approach. But UC president Janet Napolitano cautioned that regents should let the faculty group prepare a well-researched report and not rush. “Whatever we do will be a national precedent and we want it get it right,” said Napolitano, who on Wednesday announced that she will step down from the presidency in August after what will be seven years in the job. Her more deliberative approach to the testing issue appeared to win the day." --but its not just a day and it was Chair Perez, Vice Chair Estolano, Regent Ortiz Oakley who had some pretty strong opinions backed up by some facts (Estolano made clear a view that SAT only serves as a good predictor of income level and not much else. Ortiz Oakley tied harms in wasting time, waiting. Perez wanted to know straight out what the powers of the regents are on the issue. There are other regents who did not speak this time but have previously echoed their positions... Napolitano did try to bring things back by saying UC would be in the best position to wait until evidence based research could support any moves, echoing what the faculty rep round about stated in her response. Keiffer also tried to tap down along with Napolitano. We'll see- once again - its not just a day and regents seem keen to do something on it- and their are chancellors now on record about how the there are no ways to 100% ensure against misuse/cheat/rig as in e.g Varsity Blues saga...) (the article also mentions some dire numbers on grad rates at the CSU in that article as well).
-If you watch that particular regents meeting section first (on the SAT issue) it is jarring then to watch other parts of regents meetings, especially throughout the Compliance and Audit commiittee where the regents basically stated they and their UC regents officers have no power to control , among other things, procurement managers at the campus level to make them comply with UC regents policies on procurement * contracting out practices * and make it in line with uc regents approved policies actions...and on $15 minimum wage policy compliance etc. -- but their compliance and audit officers can gently suggest to them... general counsel says all powers sit with the regents but in their committees they claim only the power to suggest to campuses- which one is it?! (And Regent M raised important history on UC prior getting dinged for all this very same issue - but the rest of the panel glossed over it or did not understand what he was referencing-- it appeared regent Zettle, regent M former co-chair on this very same committee, was not there to give them chapter and verse...)The same holds true in the discussion of how regents get campuses to comply on Title IX at times.
--A surprisingly odd moment during academic affairs committee when Regent Sures asked the UC systemwide provost and his staff, who are supposed to be well versed on admissions and current events in admissions at UC , he asked if any of them read the recent LAT story on: this headline story picked up widely
"Canadian Chinese mom charged with paying $400,000 to have son admitted to UCLA as fake soccer player"
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-17/canadian-mom-charged-college-admissions-scandal-ucla-fake-soccer-player Includes: ..."Singer told Sui to place $400,000 in an escrow account, which would hold the money until her son was admitted to UCLA, according to the indictment. He told Sui her son wouldn’t “know anything is happening,” the indictment says. Two weeks later, Sui sent pictures of her son playing tennis to Treibly, who forwarded them to Singer, the indictment says. Singer then sent them to Laura Janke, a former USC assistant soccer coach, telling her, “This young man will be a soccer player from Vancouver for UCLA.”" "Singer sent the recruiting profile and transcripts to Jorge Salcedo, UCLA’s head men’s soccer coach at the time, prosecutors allege. Salcedo forwarded the transcripts to “UCLA athletics administrators in order to process the recruitment of [Sui’s son] as a UCLA soccer player,” the indictment says. “The UCLA admissions office typically allocates a number of admissions slots to each head coach to recruit highly qualified athletes,” prosecutors wrote in the indictment. “Being on a UCLA head coach’s list of recruited athletes significantly increases an applicant’s chance of being admitted.”" ..."In another conference call with Treibly, Sui and a translator, Singer told Sui to wire him $100,000, which he explained in English would be paid to “the UCLA men’s soccer coach directly,” the indictment says. The translator told Sui, according to the indictment: “Your son is admitted to this school through UCLA’s soccer team. That $100,000 is directly transferred to that soccer coach. So, although your son is a tennis player, because there is a place in [the] soccer team, so it is the soccer team that takes your son.” “OK,” Sui said, according to the indictment." ..."UCLA approved Sui’s son for admission as a recruited soccer player with a 25% athletic scholarship, the indictment says. He signed a letter of intent to play soccer at UCLA in November 2018. His mother wired Singer $300,000 in February, according to the indictment."... "UCLA mom charged with paying $400K to get son admitted as fake soccer recruit" https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/09/17/ucla-mom-charged-paying-400-k-get-son-admitted-fake-soccer-recruit/2351878001/
-and all the UC systemwide provost staff said no they did not read that news coverage and then the general counsel said he would tell them about it...it was weird.
Regent Sures did not take up the specific questions and concerns he felt were raised in that news storty but when he alluded to them he seemed deeply troubled by some of the UC actions or interactions described in that LATimes story...And, his astounded facial expession when he heard them say no, none of them read it-- that expression was ...understandable.
Here is other coverage of the meeting so far:
This op ed captures well the sentiment at the start and then the realization over time in this op ed on:
"Janet Napolitano to leave University of California with scandal overshadowing successes" https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/2019-09-19/departing-uc-president-napolitano-scandal-audit-howle
And, https://dailybruin.com/2019/09/18/uc-president-janet-napolitano-announces-resignation-effective-in-2020/ https://www.dailycal.org/2019/09/20/uc-regents-discuss-diversity-equity-at-final-meeting-of-the-month/ https://www.dailycal.org/2019/09/18/uc-president-janet-napolitano-resigns-uc-regents-hold-meeting/