Pages

Saturday, May 26, 2018

Listen to the afternoon meeting of the Regents: May 23, 2018

Long meeting which yours truly has only examined briefly. Links to the audio below. But here is one version of the highlights from the Bruin:

The board governing the University of California voted Thursday to allow more out-of-state UC students to qualify for in-state status.

The UC Board of Regents approved recommendations from the UC Office of the President to loosen student financial aid eligibility and qualifications for in-state residency, after the Academic and Student Affairs committee voted unanimously Wednesday to support the changes.

Undergraduate students under 24 who can show they are self-sufficient for one year will be able to determine their financial aid eligibility and residency status without consideration of their parents’ finances and residency status, which aligns with federal and state policy. Graduate students’ residency will also be determined without considering their parents’ residency.

The board also voted to consolidate the regents’ policy on tuition waivers with the policy on residency because they both address which students qualify as residents. Under the current tuition waiver policy, UC employees and dependents who were assigned to work outside of California receive California residency, as do students who qualify for AB 540, which allows qualifying undocumented students to be eligible for state and UC financial aid, said Christopher Carter, director of student financial support at UCOP.

The updated policy will take effect in the 2019-2020 academic year, said Robin Holmes-Sullivan, vice president of student affairs.

Under previous UC policy, undergraduate students under 24 who could prove they have been self-sufficient for at least two years could determine their financial aid eligibility without consideration of their parents’ finances. Graduate students could only have their residency be considered independently if their parents had not claimed them for income tax deductions.

The UC, state and federal government usually determine financial aid with consideration of parental finances. The UC determines the residency status of an undergraduate student who is under 24 by their parents’ residency status, with some exceptions, such as veterans, students with dependents and self-sufficient students.

A student must have a physical presence in California and the intent to make California a home to qualify for residency according to both state and UC policy.

Carter said students must submit a preponderance of indicators to show they intend to make California a permanent home, such as by paying taxes in the state or having California ID or driver’s licenses.

The board voted in favor of these changes to simplify the process of qualifying for in-state status and make it understandable to students and their families. The board also wanted to simplify this process because campuses need to determine residency before offers of admission are made to satisfy the cap on nonresident enrollment and determine the revenue from nonresident supplemental tuition.

Despite unanimous support from the committee Wednesday, some regents expressed concerns about the impact of the policy change.

Regent Eloy Ortiz Oakley asked UCOP for an estimate of how many currently enrolled students this policy would impact. He added he was concerned about whether incarcerated individuals in California who transferred to a facility outside of the state would be considered residents at the time of release.

Carter said he expects the policy will affect very few students who are nonresidents.

“Most students who receive a nonresident classification and were expecting a resident classification are facing a lack of financial aid eligibility and supplemental tuition,” he said. “Very few of them then actually enroll.”

Carter added the UC policy on residency status does not explicitly address issues of students who were formerly incarcerated who were transferred out of their home state and added those students would have limits on the types of financial aid they qualify for.

Following questions from Student Regent Paul Monge, Holmes-Sullivan said petitioners who are denied can appeal for the University to reconsider their residency. Students can petition from their own campus and general counsel’s office at UCOP.

Shane White, chair of the Academic Senate and professor of dentistry at UCLA, said he supports changing the residency requirements because it will enfranchise more Californians to receive a state-supported education.

“(This policy has a) small negative impact on tuition revenue, but for the folks who are affected, (it’s) a huge positive life impact,” White said. “(A proposal for such a policy) has come up at public comments many times over the years.”

Source: http://dailybruin.com/2018/05/24/uc-board-of-regents-approves-loosening-of-qualifications-for-in-state-residency/

Links below:


Academic and Student Affairs / National Labs:
https://archive.org/details/1Academic/1-academic.wma

Finance and Capital Strategies:
https://archive.org/details/1Academic/1-finance.wma

Governance and Compensation:
https://archive.org/details/1Academic/1-governance.wma

Friday, May 25, 2018

We didn't make it...

We didn't make it into the list of the top-10 universities ranked by billionaire alumni:

Harvard, Stanford, U of Pennsylvania, Columbia, MIT, Cornell, Yale, USC, U of Chicago, and U of Michigan.

Source: http://www.investmentnews.com/gallery/20180524/FREE/524009999/PH/10-universities-with-the-most-billionaire-alumni

Kang on Speech

Submission to the Bruin: On May 17, Students Supporting Israel at UCLA sponsored an event titled “Indigenous Peoples Unite.” Protestors entered the room and disrupted the event with enough ferocity that the panelists and audience felt silenced and intimidated.
Thankfully, no one was physically hurt. After the disruptors refused the organizer’s invitation to respectfully join the discussion, UCPD escorted them out of the room so that the event could continue. Video of the incident has circulated online, generating surprise, anger and frustration.*
UCLA is a university committed to freedom of expression as well as freedom of inquiry. Even though such commitments require us to protect lawful protest, that does not include disruptions so severe that they effectively prevent speakers from reaching a willing audience. It is one thing to persuade through evidence and argument; it is quite another to interrupt with intimidation.
Given the diversity of our campus, we will be deeply divided on some contentious subjects. How we deal with that division is the challenge. Bullying and insults might be the norm elsewhere, but our UCLA community holds itself to a higher standard – one committed to persuasion and not coercion. Our True Bruin Values require it, and we refuse to settle for anything less.
Many, if not most, of the disruptors were unaffiliated with UCLA. For those outsiders who disrupted the event, we will refer all evidence of wrongdoing to local prosecutors to determine whether they have broken the law. For those who are members of our own community, clear transgressions of university policy will also be addressed appropriately. In doing so, we will be careful about getting the facts right – and not rush to judgment – to remain fair and consistent in our procedures.
We in the administration are committed to continuous improvement. So, we will also use this event to review and revise internal processes to better manage any future disruptions that may occur. We must strive to better communicate what freedom of expression does and does not mean at UCLA, so that all parties clearly understand the rules of engagement for conveying opposing views.
UCLA expects respectful dialogue from everyone on our campus. If we do not hold everyone to that standard, then every organization, community or identity group will be subject to the type of bullying tactics we saw last week. Respectful dialogue is not synonymous with meekness or conformity; to the contrary, it is the ultimate in courage and integrity, requiring us not only to speak but also to listen. The panelists and organizers of the event showed such courage and integrity; the disruptors regrettably did not.
Jerry Kang is UCLA’s vice chancellor of equity, diversity and inclusion. Monroe Gorden Jr. is vice chancellor of student affairs [Kang is listed as the author but the note at the bottom identifies both Kang and Gorden.]
===

Thursday, May 24, 2018

The games people play

From the Bruin:

California state legislators announced a state constitutional amendment Tuesday that aims to restrict the University of California’s autonomy by reducing staff salaries, the length of regents’ terms and the authority of the UC president.
The proposed amendment limits nonfaculty salaries to $200,000 per year, which would affect coaches that, on some campuses, make millions of dollars, and administrators that make hundreds of thousands of dollars. The proposal also requires the UC Board of Regents to approve higher salaries in public hearings.
Under the amendment, regents’ terms would be reduced from 12 years to four years, and the UC president would lose their voting power on the Board of Regents. The UC Office of the President would also be required to report expenditure information to the regents, governor and Legislature.
The amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and the state Senate, followed by a majority vote by the public in a ballot measure in order to pass...

Maybe not the best choice of restaurant examples

From the Sacramento Bee:

Addressing the California Chamber of Commerce host breakfast for the final time as governor, Brown launched into an extended riff about the fast casual Mexican food chain, noting that Chipotle announced this week it is moving its headquarters to California and expressing admiration for its cheap burrito bowls.

"What I like about Chipotle is the limited menu. You stand in the line, get either brown rice or white rice, black beans or pinto beans," Brown said. "You put a little cheese, a little this, a little that, and you're out of there. I think that's a model some of our universities need to follow."

Brown has repeatedly prodded the state's public universities, particularly California State University, to improve their graduation rates. He said Wednesday that if they adopted a "limited-menu concept, everyone would graduate on time."

"They have so damn many courses because all these professors want to teach one of their pet little projects, but then you get thousands and thousands of courses, and then the basic courses aren't available. It takes kids six years instead of four years," Brown said. "I know that's not politically correct, or intellectually correct, because there's so much to learn," he added. "But you don't learn it all in college. You learn most of it after you leave. So, get a good basic education in whatever field you try to do it in and get out of there."...

Full story at http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article211828544.html

New UCLA Speech Rules

UCLA has established new speech rules for the campus based on an expenditure cap. Note that the new limits (described below) don't apply to speakers invited by student groups. (Many of the controversial speaker incidents around the country have involved speakers invited by campus groups.) Nor do the limits apply to someone speaking in a public place on campus, even if the university was compelled to provide considerable resources for security.

From Inside Higher Ed:

The University of California, Los Angeles, will cover only $100,000 in total security costs each academic year for speakers who are not invited by a student group, a spending cap on certain events that appears to be the first of its kind among high-profile colleges and universities.
This policy -- which legal experts say was carefully crafted to balance the First Amendment obligations of a public institution with the potentially high costs of hosting controversial speakers -- took effect on an interim basis this month.
It comes after nearly two years of hot-button individuals testing the boundaries of college free speech practices. Most notably, the white supremacist Richard Spencer toured universities nationwide last year in a deliberate attempt to rattle the campuses, but institutions have also faced protests inspired by visits from the ex-Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos and the conservative commentator Ann Coulter (though in her case, she didn’t end up showing up at UC Berkeley as she publicly stated she would)...
The UCLA policy ensures that the university will pay, without any limits, for security for speakers invited by student groups associated with the institution, as long as they follow certain procedures, such as registering the event at least three weeks before it occurs, and meeting with campus police at least two weeks before.
These rules don’t apply to all events – just the ones the university deems “major,” meaning more than 350 people are anticipated to attend and there may be a security risk or a chance it would interfere with campus day-to-day activities.
For campus outsiders not brought in by a student group, the university has set aside $100,000 for the same type of events per academic year. Once that money is used up, generally a speaker would be denied. Outdoor events are still allowed, meaning (a speaker) could still shout on the UCLA grounds with a megaphone if he wanted to, but he probably couldn’t rent a space if the $100,000 budget had been exceeded...

New Council to be Formed

Be careful what you wish for
From the Bruin: Students and Westwood community members won an election to create a new neighborhood council in Westwood, according to a preliminary vote tally Wednesday.
Westwood Forward, a coalition of students, homeowners and business owners, received 2,004 votes to break away from the Westwood Neighborhood Council and form their own neighborhood council that would consider local policy and advise the Los Angeles City Council on Westwood issues. 1,481 people voted not to support the creation of the new council.
The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, which oversees neighborhood councils, allows for groups to subdivide neighborhood councils based on a simple-majority vote following an application process. In December, members of the Westwood Forward coalition submitted an application, along with proposed bylaws, boundaries and a petition containing signatures from just under 1,000 individuals who favor the new council...
Editor's note: The assumption is that partitioning the current council will overcome NIMBYism and produce affordable housing for students and student-priced businesses. Given Westwood's location and high land prices, it's not clear that the eventual result won't be more high-end (unaffordable for students) housing and expensive restaurants and shopping. On verra.