Category: Yudof

Why the Resignation?

They don’t seem to be looking in the same direction.

President Yudof resigned shortly after last week’s Regents meeting.  Undoubtedly, the resignation was planned earlier so nothing that specifically happened at the meeting could have been the triggering event.  The official press release mentioned health, family, etc., obliquely.

While the Regents meeting was not the trigger, I would guess that what happened at the meeting was no surprise and could have been anticipated by anyone who heard or attended prior meetings.  The governor wants to take a bigger role than have prior governors.  That’s fine by itself, but the question is how should that role be played out.  There can’t be two presidents of UC.  (We noted in an earlier blog that the governor at one point at an earlier meeting said he was the President of UC, although he is President of the Board of Regents.)  But there seemed to be little push-back from the Regents about the governor’s intentions.  If I were Yudof in that circumstance, I would quit, too.

A key role of the Regents is providing a degree of insulation from state politics for UC.  Obviously, that insulation can never be total.  Indeed, the fact that the Regents include key political leaders as ex officio members suggests the ambiguity.  Nonetheless, issues such as online education, while sexy and of obvious interest to the governor, are ultimately getting close to crossing the fine line of micro-management.  There need to be improvements in UC management, to be sure, but micro-managing is not one of them.

If there is to be a new relationship between UC and the state, it cannot be developed by the governor, or the president of UC, or even the Regents in some unilateral fashion.  As we noted in a prior post, the only way it can be done is a process something like the one that produced the Master Plan originally.  It may be that we need a restructuring of the way in which UC is managed and the way the Regents are structured.  And let’s keep in mind that the state is putting in only about $1 dollar in $10 of the UC budget.  Students are putting in a roughly similar amount.  So there is a big institution to be considered, much of which is outside the purview of state attention.

The Yudof resignation announcement says “UC remains the premier public university system in the world…”  Note that the qualifier – premier PUBLIC university – has crept into the description in recent years.  And yet the official comparison-8 universities on which UC is supposedly benchmarked are half public and half private.  The governor’s statement that UC wants 11.6% as a state budget increase but will only get 5% – which he implies is a long-term indicator of budgetary reality – suggests the obvious.  The state can’t afford the old UC/Master Plan model.  So a new model is needed and, at the moment, we can’t get there from here.

The Yudof resignation announcement is at:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/28955

An article about the resignation in Inside Higher Ed today can be found at:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/01/21/yudof-retire-president-u-california

UPDATE: The LA Times today carries a story about how the governor wants to reshape the community colleges.  Again, this is Master Plan stuff.  The original Master Plan was intended to coordinate the three segments of higher ed: UC, what is now CSU, and the community colleges.  The article is at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-adv-college-budget-20130121,0,904916.story

UPDATE: Columnist Joe Mathews wonders whether the governor should be running UC, CSU, and the community colleges and thinks it is a bit much:
http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2013/01/chancellor-brown/

Hot Potato for Yudof

UC report on anti-Semitism draws ire

Nanette Asimov, August 9, 2012, San Francisco Chronicle(excerpts)
Katherine Orr had just started her freshman year at UC Berkeley last August when she was stunned to see five students in military fatigues carrying what looked like rifles and stopping students at Sather Gate. “They were asking people, ‘Are you Jewish?’ They were trying to be like soldiers interrogating Palestinians along the border,” Orr said. “They were re-enacting what was happening on the West Bank.” To students who regard Israel as an essential Jewish homeland, this event and others like it that are staged each year on University of California campuses seem hostile, like poorly concealed anti-Semitism – especially when the Israeli flag with its Star of David is paired with a Nazi swastika, says a new report by a UC fact-finding team seeking to understand Jewish students’ experiences. But to students who oppose Israeli policies and support such sensational protest methods, some recommendations by the team – that UC adopt a definition of anti-Semitism, prohibit hate speech and consider banning campus sponsorship of offensive activities – have become a new subject for protest.
The dispute is a collision between civil rights and free speech, where allegiances can’t always be sorted out by religion. And it suggests a microcosm at UC of the conflict in the Middle East: angry, defensive, intractable.  …(President) Yudof convened an Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion to study students’ experiences and offer solutions. On July 9, two teams of experts reported to the council on the experiences of Jewish students and of Muslim and Arab students across UC. One team concluded that Muslim and Arab students feel “marginalized and alienated on campuses” and that many experience “daily harassment,” from classmates, faculty and staff.
…(T)he report on Jewish students offers dramatic solutions to a more circumscribed brand of animosity: anti-Israel virulence and its ripple effect.  …(A) willingness to denounce Israel is often a litmus test for acceptance into social-justice groups on campus, the report found. Tension also exists with faculty, the authors found, with students describing “instances of overt hostility toward Jewish or other students” who express pro-Israel views.
…”I am a vigorous defender of free-speech rights,” (Yudof) wrote. “While hurtful speech may make that goal difficult to achieve at times, the answer is not to restrict speech, but rather to see that all our community members feel supported.” His office is reviewing the recommendations…
Full article at http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UC-report-on-anti-Semitism-draws-ire-3774302.php

Regents Endorse Governor’s Tax Initiative

Although we posted an audio and some description of the July 18 morning session of the Regents in which they endorsed Prop 30, the governor’s tax initiative, you might want to read about it rather than listen.  The Regents acted after the strong urging of President Yudof.  Here is an excerpt from Larry Gordon’s story in the LA Times with a link:

…the governing board of the 10-campus system formally endorsed the governor’s tax measure. “It’s a simple question: Will UC be better off if it passes than if it doesn’t? That’s not just an answer of ‘yes,’ that’s an answer of ‘hell yes,’ ” said Regent Bonnie Reiss, who urged the endorsement.
After the regents’ actions, Brown made a brief surprise appearance at the meeting at a UC San Francisco facility to thank them and urge students, faculty and staffers to vote for Proposition 30. “This is a matter of all hands on deck. Let’s pull together for the university and for our country,” said Brown, who holds a regent seat by virtue of his position but who has not attended a meeting, UC officials said, since he began his current term in January 2011.
Only one regent, Russell Gould, voted against the endorsement a few hours earlier, saying that the Brown measure would raise sales taxes for four years and some high-end income taxes for seven years while guaranteeing UC extra funds for only one year. “There is a major risk to the university,” Gould said…
Full story at
The audio link (which does not contain the governor’s visit and starts during Yudof’s remarks) is at
[Brown showed up late in the day and would have been on the afternoon session but the live stream went off by that time.  The afternoon audio link is at
President Yudof was clearly praying for the Regents to back the governor’s tax initiative:

The UCLA Hotel Did Not Happen That Way

In a TV interview dated 7/13/12, UC President Mark Yudof talked about donations to UC.  He agrees with the interviewer, Conan Nolan of KNBC, that it is hard to explain to the public why in budgetary hard times, buildings are going up on campuses.  But he offers various explanations, none of which justify the proposed UCLA hotel/conference center.

One explanation is that the projects have been in the pipeline 5-10 years and the bonds have already been floated.  That is not true for the proposed UCLA hotel/conference center.  Bonds have not been floated.  And although the planning timeline is fuzzy due to contradictory statements from UCLA authorities, no one has suggested the project has been in the works for 5-10 years.  
Another explanation offered is that the construction projects underway on UC campuses are dorms and parking garages that pay for themselves.  That is not true of the hotel/conference center which – even with the overoptimistic business plan – has to be subsidized by both a donation and various costs shifted to parking and other sources.  

Most significantly, Yudof says that when donors absolutely insist on having a particular building constructed, UC reluctantly will go along.  The hotel/conference center was not something the donors came to UCLA and insisted on.  UCLA has never even made that claim.  The fact is that the project was proposed by UCLA to the donors and not the reverse.  The fact is that the hotel does not fit any of the Yudof explanations.
You can listen to the audio at the link below.  The statement about reluctantly accommodating donors who insist on a part building occurs just after one minute into the audio.

Playing Catch-Up on the State Budget

As prior posts on this blog have noted, there are all kinds of last-minute developments going on regarding the state budget that affect UC including a tuition freeze in exchange for more funding – conditioned on voter approval in November of the governor’s tax initiative.

While these developments were occurring, nothing seemed to be emanating from UCOP concerning what these changes in the budget might mean, what view UCOP had of them, etc.  As of this writing, there is still nothing on the UCOP website about the budget changes. However, a letter from President Yudof to the Regents began circulating today.  The letter refers to an “understanding” between the governor and legislature but not to any agreement with UC.  It appears that UC is playing catch-up in trying to keep up with developments and doesn’t seem to be influencing them.

In any event, you can read the letter at the link below:

Radio Interview with Mark Yudof on UC Funding

You can listen to a radio interview on “Marketplace” aired earlier today with UC President Mark Yudof.  He spoke about a need for a new financial model for funding UC, although exactly what that model might be was not specified.
——-
You can hear the interview at the link below.  [The embed link on the Marketplace page seems not to work successfully on this blogsite.]

We know the view from Berkeley. From UCLA?

About a month ago, UC-Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau and co-authors issued a report calling for more autonomy for the UC campuses.  Here is the abstract: The University of California (UC) needs to respond to the fundamental and ongoing changes that are occurring around it if it is to remain financially sustainable, accessible, and academically excellent. As the campuses that make up UC have matured in the past 50 years they have, rightly, developed unique strengths and challenges. The uniqueness of individual campuses has been a natural response to the increasing complexity of our world and the highly competitive nature of higher education. These differences have been compounded by the facts that a much lesser fraction of the university budget now comes from the state and that there has been a continual evolution in the missions of the university as a whole. We propose that the Regents create and delegate appropriate responsibilities to campus-based governing boards to enable more effective campus oversight and management, while retaining their university-wide policy and fiduciary responsibilities.

You can read the full report below:

President Yudof quickly issued a statement saying:

“I do not support Chancellor Birgeneau’s proposal in current form… Chancellor Birgeneau’s proposal has not been appropriately reviewed.”

Now that a month has passed, it might be interesting for UCLA faculty to know the view on the Birgeneau proposal of our chancellor.


The full Yudof statement is below:

Click on the image for a clearer view.

Yudof notes UC support for corporate tax bill

Excerpt from the Fresno Bee:

…(UC President Yudof indicated that) UC has supported, with amendments, a bill proposed by Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) that would provide students with a family income less than $150,000 a scholarship to cover about two-thirds of college fees. About 42,000 UC students would receive the Middle Class Scholarship, saving up to $8,169 per year, according to an analysis by the Assembly Democratic Caucus. Approximately 150,000 California State University students would save $4,000 each year, and the California Community Colleges would get $150 million for financial aid.  The money to fund the scholarship would come from closing a loophole that allows out-of-state corporations to choose the tax rate they owe California, according to the bill’s proponents. The bill is in committee and requires two-thirds majority in the Legislature to pass.
Full story at: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/05/07/2828843/uc-president-yudof-says-access.html
Note that because – as the excerpt above indicates – tax bills require a 2/3 vote of the legislature, the bill is unlikely to pass.  Photo of Yudof and Pérez above.

UC History: April 30, July 2, whatever, whenever

“Today” in the tweet on the right was actually yesterday.

The Morrill Act of 1862 was also known as the Land Grant College Act. It was a major boost to higher education in America. The grant was originally set up to establish institutions in each state that would educate people in agriculture, home economics, mechanical arts, and other professions that were practical at the time. The land-grant act was introduced by a congressman from Vermont named Justin Smith Morrill. He envisioned the financing of agricultural and mechanical education. He wanted to assure that education would be available to those in all social classes.  There were several of these grants, but the first passed in 1862. This bill was signed by Abraham Lincoln on July 2. This gave each state 30,000 acres of public land for each Senator and Representative. These numbers were based on the census of 1860. The land was then to be sold and the money from the sale of the land was to be put in an endowment fund which would provide support for the colleges in each of the states…

From: http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/morrill.html
[The original UC (Berkeley) was a land-grant institution.]

No Japanese Garden at May Regents Meeting

Death Knell Rings For Hannah Carter Garden

Beverly Hills Courier 4/26/12
By Laura Coleman
On Wednesday, UCLA denied the Coalition to Save the Hannah Carter Japanese Garden an opportunity to address the UC Board of Regents during its meeting on May 15-17 in a letter from University of California President Mark Yudof. 

The May 22 deadline to bid on the UCLA-owned garden and former Carter residence, listed by Coldwell Banker for a total of $14.7 million, had prompted community activists opposed to the impending sale to redouble their efforts to place the issue on the agenda for the upcoming Regents meeting.
Source: http://www.bhcourier.com/article/Local/Local/Death_Knell_Rings_For_Hannah_Carter_Garden/87607

Hard to get a change of heart:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x_Dem0JbWM&w=320&h=195]