Spotlight on Speech Codes, 2022

Fire (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) has just released its yearly summary of the state of free speech at 481 public and private colleges and universities in the United States. FIRE defines free speech as “the overwhelming majority of speech protected by the First Amendment.” Few exceptions exist. The survey addresses a wide variety of issues with relevance to free speech, including:

Free Speech Zone Policies
Prior Restraints
Security Fee Policies
Policies Governing Speakers, Demonstrations, and Rallies
Policies on Bias and Hate Speech
Internet Usage Policies
Policies on Tolerance, Respect, and Civility
Bullying Policies
Threats and Intimidation
Harassment
Policies on Bias and Hate Speech
Obscenity
Incitement

The report is both disappointing and encouraging. It is disappointing because 86% of the institutions surveyed had some impediments to free speech, while only 12% had no impediments. UCLA, but no other UC schools, had no impediments to free speech. The report is encouraging because, for the 14th year in a row, the percentage of schools that were “red-lighted” declined (from 65% in 2012 down to 18% this year).

The report (43 pages) makes for interesting reading. We encourage you to click the link above and take a look.

Listen to Part of the Regents Afternoon Session of 1-22-2014

As we have noted in numerous prior posts, the Regents refuse to archive their meetings beyond one year. So we dutifully record the sessions in real time. Below is a link to part of the afternoon session of Jan. 22. This segment is mainly the Committee on Educational Policy. Gov. Brown was in attendance. We will separately (later) provide links just to certain Brown segments. But for now, we provide a continuous recording.

There was discussion of designating certain areas of UC-Merced as nature reserves, followed by discussion of a new telescope. The discussion then turned to online ed and the governor seemed to push for courses that involved no human interaction so that there could be unlimited enrollment. At a later point, Chancellor Block made a comment about the virtue of “residential” education which seemed aimed at the governor’s online push. He talked about a digital divide in which better off students would have traditional in-person classes and poor students would have mainly online offerings. There was discussion of the old Master Plan. Heads of the three segments in the Plan – UC, CSU, and the community colleges – were part of the discussion. Brown indicated that the Master Plan was a political compromise of an earlier era and that it needed to be questioned as to today’s needs.

The president of the UC Students Assn. spoke in support of a larger state budget allocation than the governor was proposing, an oil tax to fund education, divestment from fossil fuels, and other items.

You can hear this portion of the afternoon session at the link below:

Oversize Load?

From the Sacramento Bee:

…(T)the University of California’s academic student workers union recently filed a complaint against the UC Office of the President demanding that discussions about class size be a part of their contract negotiations. The union has been bargaining with UC since last summer, and its contract expired at the end of the year…

The UC Student-Workers Union, which represents more than 12,000 teaching assistants, tutors and readers across the UC system, is seeking a regular forum to talk about class size with faculty and UC management, said Josh Brahinsky, a Ph.D. candidate in the history of consciousness at UC Santa Cruz and a member of the bargaining team. According to a 2013 UC study, the ratio of students to faculty increased more than 10 percent from the 2005-06 to the 2010-11 academic year…

The president’s office said it has received the complaint and its position statement is due in late February, but it disputed that the union’s complaint has any basis. “Wages and working conditions are the types of issues that are addressed in labor negotiations,” spokeswoman Shelly Meron said. “Class size is an academic issue, not a bargaining issue.” She pointed to the academic student employees’ last contract, which states, “No action taken by the University with respect to a management or academic right shall be subject to the grievance or arbitration procedure or collateral suit.”…

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/09/6141029/concerned-with-growing-class-sizes.html#storylink=cpy

Full story at http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/09/6141029/concerned-with-growing-class-sizes.html

Note that there is a bit of a problem in citing a clause in an expired contract as binding after the expiration. There does not seem to be any language in the now-expired contract that would continue the cited provision after expiration: http://www.uaw2865.org/about/current-uaw-contract/#article33 We will see if PERB takes the position that class size is inherently a management prerogative. [PERB = Public Employment Relations Board, the state agency that would hear such complaints.] If PERB does take that position, it would still be legal for the university on a voluntary basis to discuss the issue and even to come to some agreement about it; a PERB decision favoring the university’s position would just mean that the university was not obligated to do so.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/09/6141029/concerned-with-growing-class-sizes.html#storylink=cpy

Napolitano Responds to UCLA’s Moreno Report

Moreno

UC President Napolitano issued a response to the (former California Supreme Court Justice Carlos) “Moreno Report” of Oct. 2013, formally titled “Independent Investigative Report on Acts of Bias and Discrimination Involving Faculty at the University of California, Los Angeles.” It includes directives to all campus chancellors:

1) Every campus should designate an official to serve as its lead discrimination officer. This official is responsible for ensuring that an appropriate response is made to all reports of perceived acts of discrimination, bias, and harassment involving faculty, students, and staff from all parts of the campus.

* The discrimination officer will designate the individuals responsible for carrying out such activities as advising complainants, accepting complaints, carrying out investigations, recommending informal resolutions, and referring cases to the Academic Senate or administrators as appropriate.

* The Chancellor should ensure that he/she regularly meets with and reviews the work of the lead discrimination officer.

2) Every campus should have an official who serves as an ombudsperson, responsible on his or her own or through other staff for providing confidential advice about perceived acts of discrimination, bias, and harassment involving faculty, students, and staff from all parts of the campus. The ombudsperson will remain entirely independent from the lead discrimination officer and will be located separately from the lead discrimination officer. He or she may carry out some investigations and seek informal resolutions of complaints, as well as contributing data to the annual report.

3) Every campus should have a “one-stop shop” website on policies, procedures, and personnel covering discrimination, bias, harassment, as well as diversity. The site will be able to accept complaints filed electronically, including anonymous complaints; provide information for an annual report of complaints and their resolution; and offer education and training, as well as the reporting responsibilities of various administrators and staff.

4) The Chancellor of every campus should continue to advocate for diversity, inclusion, and respect for all persons and deplore any acts of discrimination, bias, and harassment. Messages on these topics should be widely distributed throughout the campus, including on the website described above.

5) Every campus should compile an annual report that includes the number and types of formal and informal complaints about perceived acts of discrimination, bias, and harassment, including confidential complaints, how they were investigated, the findings, and the consequences should a complaint have been found to have merit.

Her full statement is at http://www.ucop.edu/moreno-report/index.html

The Moreno report is at http://www.ucop.edu/moreno-report/external-review-team-report-10-15-13.pdf

The Resurrection?

[More in our Regents coverage. See earlier posts.] The Regents spent some time on the old Master Plan for Higher Ed. There was discussion, according to news reports, among representatives of UC, CSU, and the community colleges on better coordination.

…“This report shines an important light on the need to have a central body whose sole focus is guiding the Legislature, governor and our three higher education segments as we plan and build for the future,” (Assembly speaker John Pérez) said.

Full story at http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-college-reports-20140123,0,5215408.story

Um, does no one remember CPEC, which still exists in ghostly form as a website (see screenshot above), after the legislature cut its budget to zero? It was supposed to be the coordinator. So will it be revived?

It’s really not so hard to recall such things!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2iIUcUL71s?feature=player_detailpage]

Issue Heating Up

We noted in yesterday’s posting (in the update portion) on the Regents public comment session that there were spokespeople complaining about anti-Israel activities on UC campuses including course credit on one campus, pushes for divestment, etc. Earlier postings noted statements by the UC prez and several chancellors (including Block) opposing an academic boycott of Israel by several academic societies. Today, the LA Times reports:

A group of lawmakers has formed the California Legislative Jewish Caucus to weigh in on issues of priority to members, including immigration, civil rights and Israel, according to its chairman, state Sen. Marty Block (D-San Diego)… So far, the new caucus has nine full members, including Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento)…

Among the issues the group will address: In the last two years, some University of California student organizations and governments have approved resolutions urging the U.C. Board of Regents to divest from companies linked to the Israeli military. Block said there was also concern about incidents of anti-Semitism on California university campuses and cases in which professors have taught anti-Israel lessons…

Full story at http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-pc-lawmakers-form-new-california-legislative-jewish-caucus-20140122,0,7883863.story

We have also noted on this blog the progress being made in getting the state to assume responsibility for the UC pension. [Indeed, the UCLA Faculty Assn. made the first break-through with the Legislative Analyst’s Office on that issue.] The Regents also noted the progress so far and also the need for UC to be treated the same as CSU regarding pension funding. (CSU is part of CalPERS for which the state assumes liability.) Thus, calls for political use of pension and other UC funds (including continued calls on the Regents to divest from fossil fuels) could end up being costly for UC by undermining that progress. At present, UC gets about the same funding as CSU, but UC has to make pension contributions out of its state funding while CSU does not. As time goes on, and pension contributions have to be ramped up, this difference – if it persists – will be a source of an ongoing budgetary squeeze of UC and upward pressure on tuition.

Thus far, no one seems to have noted the interconnection between these various issues. So you read it here first.

UC Is Drying Up

You’ve probably heard that Gov. Brown has declared a drought emergency. So UC is there – Johnny on the spot – with a pledge to save water for the guv:

University of California President Janet Napolitano today (Jan. 16) announced a goal of reducing per capita water use by 20 percent throughout the UC system by the year 2020. As California experiences some of its driest weather on record, Napolitano said the university must step up and contribute to the preservation of the state’s most precious resource. “The University of California has long been a leader in conservation efforts,” she said. “This new 2020 goal complements the university’s Carbon Neutrality Initiative and its broader award-winning sustainability efforts. UC is prepared to play a leadership role in response to California’s current water crisis by demonstrating water sustainability solutions to the rest of the state.” Every UC campus already has established its water usage baseline against a three-year average, and the 20 percent reduction goal will be pegged to each campus’s baseline…

Full media release at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/30584 Inside Higher Ed pointed yours truly to the story at http://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2014/01/21/u-california-pledges-20-reduction-water-use-2020

Anyway, it’s going to be tough:

Let Me In, Please

Apparently, freshman applications to UC are up significantly, especially to UCLA:

…Once again, UCLA was the most popular choice in the system, garnering 86,472 freshman applications, up 7.5% from last year; next was UC Berkeley, 73,711; up 8.9%. San Diego was third with 73,437; Santa Barbara received 66,756; Irvine; 66,426; Davis, 60,496; Santa Cruz, 40,687; Riverside, 34,899; and Merced, 15,264… Latinos made up the largest share of UC frosh applicants who are California residents: 32.7%. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders made up 31.7% of that group; whites, 26.2%; African Americans, 5.9%.

Full story at http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uc-applicants-20140117,0,3710326.story

She Sure Didn’t Bumble Her Meeting with the Bee

UC prez Napolitano had a meeting with the editorial board of the Sacramento Bee recently and, evidently, said the right things:

Editorial: Janet Napolitano is showing a clear-eyed view of UC mission

By the Editorial Board

Published: Thursday, Jan. 16, 2014

UC President Janet Napolitano has her priorities for the university system in correct alignment; the question will be in the execution. In a visit to The Sacramento Bee’s editorial board on Wednesday, Napolitano showed she is a quick study…

Importantly, Napolitano was clear-eyed on the basic point that UC was “designed to build California,” and that its role in educating the children of California “has to be one of our primary missions.”

“We teach for California,” she said. “We research for the world.” …

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/16/6075778/editorial-janet-napolitano-is.html?storylink=lingospot_related_articles#storylink=cpy

Full eidtorial at: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/16/6075778/editorial-janet-napolitano-is.html

And, also from the Bee, there is this article which pretty much echoes the official UC approach of saying nice things about the governor but asking for more:

Janet Napolitano on Wednesday called Gov. Jerry Brown’s recent budget outline a “good starting point” for higher education funding in California. Meeting with The Sacramento Bee’s editorial board, Napolitano did not explicitly call for more funds, but said: “We’ll have a discussion about what else can the university do and what other needs that we have.”…

Full story at http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/15/6076136/napolitano-sees-browns-budget.html

We couldn’t bug the room where she met the Bee’s editors but it sounds like a total lovefest:

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/15/6076136/napolitano-sees-browns-budget.html#storylink=cpy

Is there a Changing State Attitude Regarding the UC Pension? Reading Between the Lines

As blog readers will know, UC has had difficulties in getting the state to recognize that its pension liabilities were ultimately those of the state, just as CalPERS and CalSTRS liabilities are liabilities of the state. Thanks to the two-decade hiatus of contributions, the state seemed to forget about UC’s pension. However, there is beginning to be recognition that although you can say the pension is a liability of the Regents, in the end the Regents have no sources other than the state and tuition to deal with it.

We noted recently that in his budget document describing his proposal for 2014-15, the governor listed the UC pension and retiree health obligations along with those of other state plans. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), which at one time was adamant about the liability not belonging to the state, has not been repeating that position of late. Indeed, the LAO has just released its summary of the governor’s budget plan. It notes that the governor is trying to move to what can be seen as a block grant approach to UC (and CSU) funding, rather than one based on enrollments or particular programs. LAO complains that such an approach reduces control by the legislature. In citing examples of an alternative approach, the LAO says [page 30]:

For example, the state could allocate new funding for specific purposes such as a COLA, maintenance projects, or pension obligations.

You have to read between the lines to take this as a shift in attitude towards the UC pension. But LAO could have picked other examples.

The LAO document is at: http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2014/budget/overview/budget-overview-2014.pdf