The new laws — Senate Bill 960, authored by Napa Democrat Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, and Assembly Bill 2694, from Assemblymember David Alvarez — will let community college districts add between two and 12 new bachelor’s degree programs annually beginning in 2028. Under the framework, districts with stronger track records on graduation and transfer rates will be allowed to launch more new programs than those with weaker outcomes. The caps won’t affect bachelor’s degrees already up and running.

Currently, 49 community colleges statewide offer or are preparing to offer 66 bachelor’s degree programs. Going forward, districts will also have to demonstrate a genuine regional workforce need before adding a new program, and the annual limits will apply uniformly, regardless of whether a district operates a single campus or a network of nine.

Despite having pushed for the legislation, community college advocates ultimately opposed it after lawmakers made substantial changes just a day before a critical constitutional deadline. Their objection centers on linking degree caps to student outcome data, which they say unfairly penalizes districts serving large numbers of low-income students — students who statistically are less likely to complete certificates, earn associate degrees or transfer to four-year universities, even though they stand to benefit from more local bachelor’s degree options tied to their community’s job market.

Other college system leaders raised concerns that the bills’ late additions left too many unanswered questions. Larry Galizio, president and CEO of the Community College League of California, which represents college presidents and trustees, said in an earlier interview that being asked to endorse a process “that is not completely understood or vetted at the last minute… is just not great policymaking.”

At the heart of both bills is a long-simmering conflict between the community college system and California State University. Since 2022, community colleges have been capped at 30 new bachelor’s degrees per year, provided those programs didn’t overlap with existing offerings at any CSU or University of California campus. In practice, CSU has frequently objected to proposed community college degree programs — and on occasion, colleges moved forward with them regardless.

Community college leaders and their allies in the Legislature argued it was unreasonable to block local bachelor’s degree programs simply because a similar one exists at a UC or CSU campus that might be hundreds of miles away. Students have voiced frustration over not being able to complete a four-year degree close to home, particularly when relocating isn’t financially feasible.

California has 115 community colleges — nearly four times as many as the 31 CSU and UC campuses that currently offer bachelor’s degrees.

Under the newly signed laws, community colleges will be permitted to launch a bachelor’s degree even if a nearby CSU campus offers something similar, but only if that CSU program has turned away more than 25% of applicants from the neighboring community college for three years running.

The legislation also creates, for the first time, a formal process for resolving disputes between the two systems. If California’s labor secretary reviews a contested case and sides with the community college, the CSU objection is effectively overridden. If the labor secretary instead backs CSU, the community college district is barred from applying for a similar program for five years. CSU, which had opposed earlier drafts of the bills, shifted to a neutral stance once the revised language was released.

Community colleges remain generally prohibited from duplicating a UC degree program unless the two sides reach a formal written agreement.

Separately, Newsom vetoed another closely watched bill — this one from Assemblymember Esmeralda Soria, a Merced Democrat — that would have allowed community colleges to offer a bachelor’s degree in nursing, something currently off-limits. It was the third consecutive year Soria has pushed the measure, and the third time Newsom has rejected it. In his veto message, the governor said the new framework created by the Alvarez and Cabaldon bills makes a separate nursing degree pilot unnecessary.

“It is neither necessary nor appropriate to authorize an additional pilot or create an exception to the framework, as this bill proposes,” Newsom wrote. “California’s public higher education segments should instead focus on implementing this newly created, comprehensive system.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post New Laws Signed by Newsom Allow California Community Colleges to Add Up to 12 Bachelor’s Degree Programs appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Senate Bill 960, authored by Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, D-Napa, and Assembly Bill 2694, authored by Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-Chula Vista, both passed with strong support this week. But the versions that emerged look markedly different from what community college advocates originally championed, prompting statewide college leaders to withdraw their backing in the final stretch.

Newsom has rejected similar proposals in the past, vetoing earlier attempts to expand bachelor’s degree offerings at community colleges. This time, though, his office was involved in shaping the legislation, according to Cabaldon, who told his Senate colleagues this week that it marked a rare moment of cooperation between the Legislature and the governor’s office.

“This is the first time we’ve been able to have a productive conversation between the houses and the executive branch,” Cabaldon said during floor remarks.

Together, the two bills create a new framework for deciding when — and how many — bachelor’s degrees community colleges can offer. Starting in 2028, colleges could add anywhere from two to twelve new degree programs, with the number tied to performance metrics such as certificate completion, degree attainment and transfer rates. No single district could roll out more than three new degrees in a given year, and each proposal would need to demonstrate a clear regional workforce need.

That workforce justification could face a challenge from the California State University system, which has frequently sparred with community colleges over similar proposals. Under the new rules, if Cal State objects, the state’s labor secretary would be brought in to settle the dispute.

The new restrictions would only apply to degrees created after 2028; existing bachelor’s degree programs at community colleges would not be affected. Currently, 49 community colleges statewide offer or are preparing to offer a combined 66 bachelor’s degree programs.

Cabaldon described the legislation as a long-overdue framework that would finally bring clarity to a contentious issue.

“This will bring us peace,” he said in an interview. “That doesn’t mean everyone will agree all the time, but it does mean the endless warfare, the disputes, the fighting and the growing pile of bills will come to an end.”

Community college leaders, however, say the amendments were rushed, confusing and overly complicated — even as they acknowledge lawmakers were attempting to tackle a genuinely difficult problem.

“We’re being asked to… support a process that isn’t fully understood and was revised at the last minute, and that’s not good policymaking,” said Larry Galizio, president and CEO of the Community College League of California, which represents college presidents and trustees throughout the state.

Why bachelor’s degrees have become such a flashpoint

The sudden reversal by community college advocates adds another chapter to a debate that has simmered for years.

Community colleges and Cal State have long clashed over which bachelor’s degrees community colleges should be allowed to offer. A 2021 state law was supposed to settle the matter, but disagreements persisted — largely over what counts as program “duplication.” Under that law, community colleges were barred from creating degree programs that already existed at any Cal State or University of California campus, even if that campus was hundreds of miles away.

Critics, including several lawmakers, argued the rule was unfair to community college students who often cannot relocate to attend a distant university. In some cases, community colleges moved forward with new degree programs anyway, despite objections from Cal State, according to reporting by EdSource.

Supporters and opponents of expanding bachelor’s degree access at community colleges continue to cite conflicting data to bolster their arguments.

One recent study found that 29 of California’s 116 community colleges are located at least 25 miles from the nearest public university, effectively isolating roughly 157,000 students who cannot easily relocate or commute to pursue a four-year degree elsewhere.

Some students argue that their local community colleges need the ability to offer bachelor’s degrees because area employers require them — certificates and associate degrees alone often aren’t enough. Yet under current law, those colleges can be blocked from offering such programs simply because a Cal State campus 500 miles away already offers something similar.

At the same time, community colleges statewide continue to post low transfer rates. Only 21% of students who intend to transfer to a four-year university actually do so within four years, according to the state auditor. Some see this as evidence of a broken transfer pipeline that could be fixed by allowing more bachelor’s degree programs. Others argue it shows community colleges aren’t yet equipped to expand their academic offerings, especially since many also struggle with low completion rates for certificates and associate degrees.

How the bills tackle degree duplication

In response to years of gridlock, Alvarez and Cabaldon each introduced comprehensive legislation this year aimed at letting community colleges create bachelor’s degree programs even when similar degrees exist at nearby Cal State campuses. Community colleges initially backed these versions, while Cal State pushed back, favoring streamlined transfer pathways instead — a solution some within the university system saw as protecting enrollment and tuition revenue at a time when several Cal State campuses are already grappling with declining student numbers.

The revised, combined legislation now allows community colleges to propose new bachelor’s degrees even if a nearby Cal State campus offers something similar — but only if that Cal State program has accepted less than 75% of applicants from the neighboring community college for three consecutive years. Colleges would still need to submit workforce need reports and stay within the newly imposed degree caps. That workforce justification could stem from employers struggling to fill positions that require a four-year degree, according to the bill language.

Unlike current law, which offers no formal process for resolving disputes between community colleges and Cal State over duplication, the new system gives the state labor secretary authority to settle disagreements. If the labor secretary sides with the community college, Cal State’s objection is overridden. But there are consequences for losing that fight: if the labor secretary sides with Cal State, the community college district is barred from proposing a similar program for five years.

Community colleges remain fully barred from duplicating degree programs offered at any UC campus unless they receive written consent from the university.

Why community colleges are now pushing back

The newly imposed caps on how many degrees a district may offer have become a major sticking point. Under the bills, districts would be evaluated based on completion rates and how those rates compare to the statewide average.

The legislation “would make a district’s eligibility partly dependent on how it compares to every other district in the state,” according to a letter of opposition sent to Cabaldon and signed by Sonya Christian, chancellor of the California Community Colleges system. A district could improve its own outcomes and still face the same restrictions “or even see its eligibility shift simply because the statewide average changed,” she wrote.

Galizio, of the Community College League, also objects to the proposed caps on new degree creation. He noted in an interview that campuses with lower graduation rates often serve larger populations of low-income students — the very students who stand to benefit most from expanded access to bachelor’s degree programs.

Not every community college leader views the legislation as harmful, however. Jose Fierro, president and superintendent of the Cerritos Community College District, said that based on his college’s completion rates, he expects to be authorized to add six to eight new bachelor’s degree programs beginning in 2028. That, he said, is plenty for now. Cerritos currently offers two bachelor’s degrees and plans to roll out additional programs in 2027.

“We’re not trying to become a university. That’s not our mission. We’re trying to align with industry and provide pathways to social and economic mobility for our students,” Fierro said in an interview.

Still, he acknowledged that what works for his campus may not work system-wide.

“For some of us, this is workable,” he said. “For other colleges, this is going to create some real additional challenges.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Community Colleges Suddenly Balk at Plan to Expand Bachelor’s Degree Offerings appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Despite the opposition, Senate Bill 960, authored by Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, D-Napa, and Assembly Bill 2694, authored by Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-Chula Vista, both cleared the Legislature this week with strong support and now await Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature.

Newsom has previously rejected similar proposals to broaden community colleges’ bachelor’s degree offerings. This time, though, his office reportedly helped shape the final language. Cabaldon told fellow senators Monday that the process marked a shift in tone.

“This is the first time that we’ve been able to engage in productive conversation between the houses and the executive branch,” he said during floor remarks.

Together, the two bills would establish a new framework for deciding which community college districts can create bachelor’s programs and how many they’re allowed to offer. Beginning in 2028, colleges could add anywhere from two to 12 new bachelor’s degrees, with the exact number tied to how well their students perform on measures such as certificate completion, degree attainment and transfer rates. No single district could roll out more than three new degrees in a given year, and each proposed program would need to demonstrate a genuine regional workforce demand — a claim the California State University system could challenge. If that happens, the state’s labor secretary would step in to resolve the dispute, a role meant to end the recurring clashes between the two systems over academic turf.

Any new restrictions would only apply to degrees created after 2028. Programs already up and running would be unaffected. Currently, 49 community colleges either offer or are preparing to launch a combined 66 bachelor’s degree programs statewide.

Cabaldon described the legislation as a long-overdue resolution to years of policy gridlock.

“This will give us peace,” he said in an interview. “That doesn’t mean everybody’s going to agree all of the time, but it does mean the endless war and bickering and fighting and more and more legislation will come to an end.”

Yet many community college administrators say the process moved too quickly, leaving key details unclear. Larry Galizio, president and CEO of the Community College League of California, which represents college trustees and administrators statewide, said the last-minute nature of the changes undermines confidence in the outcome.

“We’re being asked to support a process that is not completely understood or vetted at the last minute, and so that’s just not great policymaking,” Galizio said.

A long-running turf battle

The community college system’s reversal is the latest chapter in a debate that has simmered for years. Historically, the biggest sticking point between community colleges and Cal State has been what’s known as “degree duplication.” A 2021 law barred community colleges from offering a bachelor’s degree if any Cal State or University of California campus already provided a similar program — regardless of how far away that campus might be.

Critics argued the rule was unfair to students who can’t easily relocate for a four-year degree. Some community colleges moved forward with new programs anyway, defying Cal State’s objections, according to reporting by EdSource.

Supporters and opponents of expanding community college bachelor’s programs often cite conflicting evidence to make their case. One recent study found that 29 of California’s 116 community colleges are located at least 25 miles from the nearest public university, effectively leaving roughly 157,000 students without convenient access to a four-year institution.

Some students say that without local bachelor’s degree options, they’re stuck — even though regional employers are asking for degrees beyond an associate’s or certificate. Yet critics point to the community college system’s low transfer rate — only about 21% of students intending to transfer actually do so within four years, according to the California State Auditor. That statistic, some argue, suggests the system needs to fix its transfer pipeline before adding more four-year programs, especially given that many colleges also struggle with low completion rates for existing certificates and associate degrees.

New rules on duplication

To address the standoff, Alvarez and Cabaldon initially crafted broader bills that would have let community colleges offer bachelor’s degrees even when similar ones exist at nearby Cal State campuses. Community college leaders backed those early versions, while Cal State pushed back, favoring smoother transfer pathways into its own bachelor’s programs instead. Some within the Cal State system worry that community college expansion could pull away students and tuition dollars at a time when several campuses are already facing enrollment drops.

The compromise legislation allows community colleges to propose a bachelor’s degree that overlaps with a Cal State program only if that Cal State campus has accepted fewer than 75% of transfer applicants from the community college in question over three consecutive years. Colleges would still need to document workforce demand and stay within the newly created degree caps. Acceptable justification could include local employers struggling to fill jobs that require a bachelor’s degree.

Unlike current law, which offers no formal way to break a deadlock between the two systems, the new bills give the state labor secretary authority to make a final call. If the labor secretary sides with the community college, Cal State’s objection is overridden. But if the ruling favors Cal State, the community college district would be barred from proposing a similar program for five years. Community colleges would generally still be prohibited from duplicating any UC program unless the university system gives written permission.

Pushback over new limits

The biggest objection from community college leaders centers on the newly imposed caps tied to student outcome data. Under the bills, a district’s eligibility to add new degrees would depend in part on how its completion rates stack up against the statewide average — a moving target that could shift even if a district’s own performance improves.

In a letter opposing the legislation, California Community Colleges Chancellor Sonya Christian warned that the formula could penalize districts unfairly. “A district could improve its own student outcomes” and still be capped, she wrote, “or even see its eligibility change simply because the statewide average changed.”

Galizio raised a similar concern, noting that colleges with lower completion rates often serve larger populations of low-income students — the same students who could benefit most from access to a four-year degree closer to home.

Not every community college leader views the legislation as a setback. Jose Fierro, president and superintendent of the Cerritos Community College District, expects his district’s completion rates would allow it to add six to eight new bachelor’s programs once the rules take effect in 2028 — more than enough for his college’s immediate plans. Cerritos currently offers two bachelor’s degrees and is preparing to add more by 2027.

“We are not trying to become a university. It’s not our mission,” Fierro said. “We’re trying to align with industry and provide pathways for social and economic mobility for our students.”

Still, he acknowledged that what works for his district may not work everywhere.

“For some of us this is workable,” he said. “For other colleges, this is going to bring some additional challenges.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Community Colleges Reverse Course, Push Back on Plan to Expand Bachelor’s Degree Offerings appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

State lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 713 on Friday, sending the governor a bill that would bar the University of California, California State University and the state’s community colleges from refusing to hire students simply because they lack legal status. The measure, authored by Assemblymember José Luis Solache, a Lakewood Democrat, drew broad Democratic support and even a vote in favor from one Republican lawmaker. If signed, it would take effect Jan. 6.

This is not the first time such a proposal has reached Newsom’s desk. He vetoed nearly identical legislation in 2024, citing worries that granting campus jobs to students without legal status could invite retaliation from the Trump administration, including possible cuts to the roughly $17 billion in federal funding the UC system receives each year.

Those same concerns are surfacing again. California’s Department of Finance has recommended against the bill, pointing to the risk of federal litigation and funding losses. The UC itself walked away from a similar internal proposal in 2024 for the same reasons, a decision that prompted tears and outrage from students at a Board of Regents meeting.

Some Republican lawmakers echoed those fears during debate on the current bill. Assemblymember David Tangipa, R-Fresno, argued in a January hearing that jeopardizing federal funding for the entire student body over this issue would be irresponsible, and he voted against the measure Friday.

The push for campus employment rights matters most for the tens of thousands of students without legal status enrolled across California’s public higher education systems — an estimated 60,000 as of 2023, the majority attending community colleges. These students cannot access federal Pell Grants, worth up to $7,400 a year, or federal student loans, which typically offer better protections than private financing. While California allows eligible students to attend public colleges tuition-free regardless of immigration status, many still struggle to cover living expenses without the ability to hold a legal job.

“While California has a longstanding commitment to expanding access, affordability, and student success in higher education, our undocumented students continue to face significant financial and structural barriers,” Solache told colleagues during a June hearing.

The legislation rests on a legal theory first advanced in 2022 by a group of UCLA scholars, who argued that the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 — the law generally barring employers from hiring workers without legal status — was never intended to apply to state government employers. Because the law does not explicitly list states among covered employers, unlike other statutes that clearly do, the scholars contend Congress never meant to restrict state hiring decisions in this way. A state Senate Judiciary Committee analysis added that Congress may lack the authority to dictate state employment practices altogether under principles of federalism.

That theory led the UC Board of Regents to explore hiring students without legal status, but the effort collapsed under fear of federal backlash. Students later sued the university system, and a state appellate court ruled that UC’s blanket refusal to hire such students amounted to an abuse of discretion under California’s anti-discrimination laws. The court did not order UC to start hiring these students, but it said the university could not continue its policy without demonstrating that federal law actually requires it. The state Supreme Court declined to disturb that ruling. UC was also ordered to pay more than $500,000 in legal fees to the plaintiffs, who included a student and a former lecturer.

Because of the UC’s unique constitutional autonomy, dating back to 1879, it remains uncertain whether Solache’s bill could even compel the system to comply if signed into law. A UC spokesperson, Omar Rodriguez, said the university “is evaluating its options in light of the court’s ruling and will take appropriate action when that evaluation has concluded,” adding that UC has taken no formal position on the bill.

In the meantime, some students without legal status have found workarounds, forming limited liability companies or cooperatives that let them work as independent contractors rather than traditional employees — a strategy detailed in a 2022 law review article by University of Oklahoma professor Kit Johnson. But not every student has the resources or knowledge to set up such an arrangement, leaving many without a legal path to campus employment.

Supporters of the bill also pushed back on concerns that working legally on campus could expose students to greater immigration enforcement risk. They note that state and federal privacy laws limit what personal student information universities can share without consent. Still, that assurance has been tested recently: UC and Cal State campuses have shared student and staff records with federal investigators as part of the Trump administration’s inquiries into alleged antisemitism on campus, prompting lawsuits and, in the case of Cal State, a settlement requiring the university to notify employees before releasing their information to federal authorities.

Advocates argue that the possibility of immigration enforcement shouldn’t be used as a reason to deny students legal work opportunities, noting that the risks they face already exist whether or not they’re employed on campus.

Now the decision returns to Newsom, who must again decide whether to embrace an untested legal argument that could open a new front with Washington, or to once more side with caution and veto a measure that has strong support among legislative Democrats and immigrant advocacy groups.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom Faces Decision on Campus Jobs for Undocumented College Students appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The major blends hands-on technical skills — coding, statistical analysis, data visualization and 3D mapping — with the kind of inquiry long associated with humanities departments: literature, history and the study of global cultures. School officials describe it as an attempt to meet employers halfway, giving graduates both the analytical depth companies say they want and the technical fluency that’s increasingly non-negotiable in the job market. Group projects are baked into the coursework, too, since collaboration is another skill hiring managers consistently flag as lacking among new graduates.

A central theme running through the curriculum is how emerging technology, particularly generative AI, is reshaping culture and carrying embedded biases along with it. Students will be pushed to think critically about the ethical use of these tools, while also learning firsthand how easily they can be misused to spread misinformation.

Todd Presner, a UCLA professor of European languages and transcultural studies who helped lead the push to establish the new department, said the divide between technical fields and humanities disciplines has grown into something of a liability for both sides.

“It’s actually at our own peril when scientists are not speaking to folks in the humanities with historical knowledge, ethical knowledge, cultural knowledge,” Presner said. “And at the same time, when the humanities are not understanding the technologies in the world today, they also could be seen as irrelevant.”

In one of his courses, Presner has students examine the inner workings of large language models — the systems underpinning AI tools such as ChatGPT and Claude. “Students can essentially upload their own training data to some of these smaller models and see how easily they can be manipulated,” he said.

Though the major is new, the subject isn’t. UCLA has offered digital humanities coursework for more than two decades, and it has quietly become the campus’s second-most-popular minor. That popularity was part of what convinced administrators to elevate it to full major status, according to Alexandra Minna Stern, dean of the UCLA College Division of Humanities, which will house the new department. Roughly 750 undergraduates took a digital humanities course last academic year. Stern is hoping for 40 declared majors this fall, with an eventual goal of 50 to 100 students in the program.

The department will begin with 23 faculty members, including lecturers, along with four staff positions. Stern said she’d like to expand the faculty further down the road, though a current hiring freeze at UCLA has put those plans on hold for now. No existing academic department was eliminated to make room for the new major. Because faculty are drawn from a range of humanities disciplines as well as information studies and data science, classes will be spread across multiple buildings on campus.

Stern also said the university is working to secure internship placements for students, including with the Wende Museum in the Los Angeles area, which specializes in preserving and digitizing oral histories and artifacts from refugees and dissident communities — work that aligns closely with the skills taught in the major. She hopes to arrange similar partnerships with other institutions.

Introductory coursework will be organized around two broad tracks: data-focused classes such as statistical reasoning, and culture-focused classes examining topics like the symbolic history of Jerusalem or how antiquity has been portrayed on film. Upper-division offerings will dig into subjects such as the political and social forces shaping modern technology, along with courses on analyzing social media data.

Kedaar Sridhar, 26, graduated from UCLA in 2022 with a degree in computer science and a minor in digital humanities. His favorite class was the one focused on social media analysis. For a class project during the pandemic, he and a group of classmates used Python and sentiment-analysis tools to study how the hashtag “facemask” was being used across different countries, gauging public attitudes toward face coverings based on the tone of the posts.

Looking back, Sridhar said he wishes the full major had existed when he was a student, since it would have let him combine his technical training with the kind of interpretive thinking the humanities emphasize.

“I think computer science is the what, digital humanities is the how and the why, and how do you actually apply it, and why is it important to be applied,” he said.

Sridhar credits his minor with helping him land an internship at Microsoft. While every other applicant also had a computer science background, he said his digital humanities training set him apart. When an interviewer asked what the minor involved, he described it as “human-centered data storytelling, working with groups, working in projects, getting a tangible outcome” — which, he said, was exactly what the interviewer wanted to hear.

Since then, Sridhar has co-founded Grantlytics, an AI-driven platform that helps nonprofits with fundraising by drafting proposals, identifying grant opportunities and flagging potential donors. Now on the hiring side himself, he said he looks for the same blend of skills the new major is designed to produce. Without a dedicated digital humanities background, he said he’d lean toward candidates who combine humanities training with coding or math experience — but the major itself, he said, “automatically is that interdisciplinary nature because it combines those two worlds together.”

That kind of interdisciplinary demand appears to be borne out in national hiring data. According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers’ annual survey, employers largely consider recent college graduates employable, but with some notable gaps. While 99% of hiring managers said communication and persuasion skills were important, only 55% felt recent graduates actually excelled in those areas. A similar gap showed up around critical thinking: about 94% of employers rated it as a top priority, yet only about half of graduates were seen as strong at gathering information from varied sources, drawing sound conclusions or performing well under pressure.

Technology skills told a different story. Roughly 75% of employers said adapting to new technology and using it to advance company goals mattered a great deal, and about 65% of recent graduates were rated proficient in that area — a smaller gap than in other categories, but one that still points to room for improvement.

Stern is careful not to suggest that digital humanities alone can reverse the long decline in humanities enrollment nationwide. The share of U.S. college students majoring in fields like literature, history, philosophy and foreign languages has fallen to about 8% of degrees awarded, down from nearly 15% two decades ago — a trend UCLA has mirrored. Still, Stern points to Federal Reserve Bank of New York data suggesting the job market doesn’t always follow conventional wisdom.

“An art history grad is more likely to get a job these days than a computer science grad,” she said, adding that hiring trends shift over time in ways that don’t always match where students think they should aim their studies.

Original source: CalMatters

The post UCLA Launches Nation’s First Bachelor’s Degree Program in Digital Humanities appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The delay stems from a change the U.S. Office of Federal Student Aid put into effect in April, updating fraud-prevention screening tied to the 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill” signed by Republican lawmakers. As a result, universities — including the 23-campus Cal State system — received federal files detailing student aid awards five to six weeks later than usual.

That lag meant an unknown number of students didn’t find out their final aid amounts until just weeks before the start of the semester. Some learned the figures only after their original tuition deadlines had already passed. To avoid dropping students who hadn’t yet paid, campuses put safeguards in place to keep those with pending financial aid enrolled.

“This is very unusual,” said April Grommo, assistant vice chancellor for strategic enrollment management at the CSU Chancellor’s Office, of the timing disruption occurring mid-cycle.

It’s worth noting that the reporting delay is separate from the actual disbursement of aid. Federal rules already bar schools from releasing financial aid funds until within 10 days of the start of the academic term — and CSU classes were just getting underway this month.

Frustration surfaces online

The uncertainty spilled over into social media, with students posting worried messages on Reddit forums for several CSU campuses. One Cal State Fullerton student wrote on Aug. 1: “I’m really stressed because the semester starts Aug. 22 … and I don’t want to get dropped from any classes.” Similar concerns surfaced in Reddit threads tied to San Jose State, Cal State Long Beach and Cal State Northridge.

According to Grommo, students who submitted their Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) before California’s March 2 priority deadline were not affected by the backlog.

Still, the scale of aid flowing through the CSU system is enormous. Last year, the university distributed roughly $5.5 billion to more than 385,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Grommo said financial aid staffers across CSU campuses put in extra hours trying to make up for the federal slowdown, though staffing shortages in several financial aid offices only compounded the challenge of getting timely information out to students.

Adding to the confusion, another provision in the 2025 federal law lowered the caps on how much students and parents can borrow for college. Those new limits took effect this year, likely catching some students who rely on loans off guard. Even so, about 65% of CSU undergraduates who earn a bachelor’s degree graduate without any loan debt.

Despite the online chatter, the California State Student Association — the system’s undergraduate student government — hasn’t seen evidence of a widespread crisis, according to executive director Joe Nino. “At this time, CSSA is not aware of this being a systemic issue,” Nino wrote in an email. “Our understanding is that safeguards are in place to ensure students are not dropped from their classes due to FAFSA delays.”

Sydney Yee, vice president of the Associated Students at Cal State Fullerton and a senior finance major, said her office hasn’t fielded complaints accusing campus officials of being unresponsive. Yee herself had questions about her own aid package and called the financial aid office over the summer, saying she received helpful guidance. Reddit users offered similar advice to anxious classmates: call your campus financial aid office, and don’t give up after one attempt.

“Something I think financial aid staff have done really well here is stay very proactive about these delays,” Yee said, pointing to explanatory emails and Instagram posts from the university clarifying why some students saw course-drop notifications on their accounts — and why those holds were later lifted.

Grommo said those notifications were meant to reassure students. If an enrollment hold was lifted and a student remained registered, that generally meant the university had confirmed the student’s account was in good standing.

Jessicca Barco, associate vice president for strategic enrollment management at Cal State Fullerton, said returning students typically receive their financial aid information between May and June. That timing exists in part to make sure students meet federal academic-progress requirements before aid is finalized. Because of this year’s federal delay, about 23,000 returning Fullerton students didn’t receive their aid notifications until last Friday. The campus pushed back its tuition payment deadline to Aug. 19 — weeks later than the mid-July deadline many students are used to.

Why some students wait longer

Grommo said there are several reasons certain students end up waiting longer than others for their aid to be finalized — in past years, some didn’t receive final numbers until October. Students who filed their FAFSA later in the summer, rather than in late winter, are more likely to experience delays. Others may have been flagged for a financial verification review to confirm eligibility, or may need to appeal after falling below the grade requirements tied to continued aid eligibility. Sudden changes in family income that weren’t reflected on the original application can also slow the process.

“Most students get through the process just fine, but of course, the small group that doesn’t get through smoothly is the group that really generates the biggest problems,” Grommo said.

Her advice to students: make sure your school email account is set up correctly, since campuses often rely solely on that address rather than a personal email — and keep calling your financial aid office if answers aren’t coming quickly.

By Wednesday, Cal State Fullerton students had finally received their financial aid disbursements.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Some Cal State Students Received Financial Aid Decisions Much Later This Year — Here’s Why appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Times report, published in March, included an account from Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers, who said Chavez raped her on two occasions. The investigation also documented a broader pattern of sexual abuse by Chavez toward women and girls involved with the UFW.

Oliver Rosales, a history professor at Bakersfield College, happened to be teaching a lecture on the farmworker movement the same day the story broke. He scrapped his planned material on the Delano grape strike and instead walked students through the Times report in real time.

“Some students used words like shock, devastating, heartbreaking, moving,” Rosales said. “I was glad it happened at that moment, with those students, in that moment. I wouldn’t want to have been anywhere else in the world when the news came out.”

Rosales, who has researched and taught the farmworker movement for years, said he was as stunned as anyone in his field. “I was texting with several professors around the country, and we were all in shock, because no historian knew anything about this,” he said. “This really feels like a second social death.”

Chavez died in 1993 at age 66, leaving behind a legacy woven deeply into California’s civil rights history. More than 130 public spaces and monuments nationwide bear his name, including more than 65 streets, schools and parks in California alone. The state has recognized his birthday as an official holiday since 2000.

Colleges and universities moved quickly after the allegations surfaced, renaming buildings and removing statues honoring Chavez. Now faculty across the state are grappling with a harder question: what does it mean to teach and research a figure like Chavez, and how can instruction expand beyond a single leader to capture the fuller story of the farmworker movement.

Swift changes on campus

State lawmakers wasted little time renaming Cesar Chavez Day to Farmworkers Day in March. California’s public universities followed with their own changes.

At Fresno State and Cal State San Marcos, statues of Chavez were covered and removed within two days of the Times report. At San Joaquin Delta College, a ceramic relief and plaque honoring Chavez were replaced with a mural celebrating farmworkers, painted by Delta College students. UC Berkeley removed Chavez’s name from a student center, and UCLA’s Chicano Studies department dropped his name as well.

Some suggested simply substituting Huerta’s name in place of Chavez’s, but faculty members argue for a more thoughtful approach — one that honors the collective effort of the movement rather than elevating a single figure.

“If Dolores Huerta’s name comes up, I want it to be because of her own achievements and merits, not as a reaction to the allegations against Cesar Chavez,” said Lorena Oropeza, a professor of Chicano and Latino studies at UC Berkeley.

Campuses are also reconsidering curriculum tied to Chavez’s name. At Bakersfield College, some faculty pushed to immediately scrap the Cesar Chavez Leadership Certificate, a program that teaches students about community organizing through the lens of Chavez’s role in the San Joaquin Valley farmworker movement.

Rosales, who created the certificate program, said any curriculum changes deserve careful study rather than a quick elimination. No formal motion has been brought before the Academic Senate yet, but Rosales said he and his colleagues would support a name change that goes through the proper process.

“When we look at the curriculum, it actually gives us what we need, because it broadens the history well beyond the UFW,” Rosales said.

A long history of scholarly reckoning

History books often center the 1965 Delano grape strike, when farmworkers walked off the job for five years demanding fair wages and better conditions. Frequently left out of that narrative is the fact that Filipino American labor leaders Larry Itliong and Philip Vera Cruz launched the strike. Itliong’s Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee later merged with Chavez’s National Farm Workers Association to form the United Farm Workers, whose organizing eventually led to a national grape boycott and victory for the workers.

Ethnic studies scholars have long examined the complicated, sometimes contradictory nature of labor movement leaders. Researchers have scrutinized Chavez’s anti-immigrant positions and studied the farmworker movement through oral histories gathered from workers and their families.

At UC Berkeley, Oropeza studies the peace and racial justice movements of the 1960s, a decade when the farmworker movement became intertwined with the broader Chicano movement, which also included campus protests demanding ethnic studies, land rights and civil rights. Leaders like Chavez became central figures of that era.

One leader Oropeza has researched extensively is Reies Lopez Tijerina, a Texas-born Chicano leader who spearheaded a major land grant movement in the 1960s American Southwest, seeking the return of ancestral lands ceded after the Mexican-American War. Her research also uncovered a pattern of abuse Tijerina inflicted on his own family.

As leader of the Alianza Federal de Mercedes, or Federal Alliance of Land Grants, Tijerina led peaceful protests in Albuquerque and Santa Fe and occupied Echo Amphitheater, renaming it the “Republic of San Joaquin del Rio Chama” — an act that led to arrests among Alianza members. Most notably, Tijerina and his followers staged an armed raid on a courthouse in Tierra Amarilla, New Mexico, attempting a citizen’s arrest of the local district attorney over alleged civil rights violations. Tijerina’s arrest following the raid drew national attention to the civil rights and Chicano movements.

Oropeza’s 2019 book, “The King of Adobe: Reies Lopez Tijerina, Lost Prophet of the Chicano Movement,” examines both his role in revitalizing the land grant movement and the patriarchal control he exercised at home. Her research draws on archival records and oral histories, including interviews with Tijerina’s first wife and eldest daughter, who described patterns of physical and sexual abuse. Tijerina died in 2015 at age 88.

“How do you reconcile this person who was absolutely brilliant in critiquing American expansion and its consequences for Spanish speakers in the new American Southwest, but who was absolutely reprehensible in how he treated his family?” Oropeza asked. Her book, she said, sits with “both realities” and uses gender as a lens for understanding his leadership style.

Oropeza has also studied Chavez’s leadership closely, recalling striking images of him fasting to draw attention to farmworkers’ struggles and his use of cultural and religious symbolism as political tools, including his Lenten pilgrimage from Delano to Sacramento alongside workers. Many referred to Chavez as “El Santo,” or the movement’s saint, she said.

To process the allegations against Chavez, Oropeza points to both her own research and existing critical scholarship. Miriam Pawel’s 2014 biography, “The Crusades of Cesar Chavez,” offers a critical account of the man, including his anti-immigrant stance, his autocratic control over the union, and the ways he undermined other labor movements.

“I’ve spent the last 12 years thinking about how you write about complicated people — people who can act in reprehensible ways but who can also do great things,” Oropeza said.

Looking ahead, Oropeza believes any serious study of the Chicano and farmworker movements must hold multiple, sometimes conflicting truths at once.

“For me, this is just a reminder that this endeavor we’re engaged in as scholars … is imperfect,” Oropeza said. “We’re always approaching, ‘What is the truth?’ Is there one single truth? We get closer and closer, but we never fully arrive.”

New approaches take shape in the classroom

Alina Mendez, a professor of Chicano and Latin American studies at Fresno State, has experienced the connection between the personal and the political firsthand — her own parents worked as farmworkers. While teaching a class on the farmworker movement, she asked her students directly whether they should keep discussing Chavez, and if so, how.

“There’s a collective grief, a collective disappointment, kind of a questioning of, if Cesar Chavez is no longer our hero, who do we look up to?” Mendez said.

“As a scholar, obviously, I learned and I teach this history,” Mendez said. “But as a daughter of farmworkers, I grew up honoring the memory, the legacy of Cesar Chavez.”

Her class ultimately reached a shared understanding: that they should continue learning about Chavez while also holding him accountable, “with the hope that this (abuse of power) doesn’t happen again,” she recalled.

“I can clearly sense this collective grief, this collective disappointment, this kind of questioning — if Cesar Chavez is no longer our hero, who do we look up to?” Mendez said. “That’s why I’ve pushed us to look at our local communities. Let’s look around and see other people who sacrificed a lot of time, a lot of resources and a lot of effort to make those achievements possible.”

Mendez is reshaping her teaching approach to spotlight local leaders and local stories within the broader farmworker movement. She’s been in talks with Arte Americas, a Fresno-based Latino arts and cultural center, about continuing to gather archival material and interviews with workers throughout the Central Valley.

“In many ways, obviously, my teaching is changing,” Mendez said. “As historians, I think we’re increasingly understanding the importance of focusing on the collective rather than on the individual leader.”

Faculty members say ethnic studies and history departments will play a central role in shaping how the farmworker movement’s history gets taught going forward. They argue researchers should prioritize gathering oral histories directly from workers themselves, rather than letting dominant voices continue to define the movement’s narrative.

“If there’s anyone who can help us understand the complexities surrounding race in America, it’s ethnic studies scholars,” Oropeza said. “This is an area where ethnic studies experts will be able to shine.”

Rosales said he hopes this moment opens the door to research highlighting the contributions of additional communities within the farmworker movement, including Arab American and Southeast Asian American workers.

“I think the legacy of the farmworker movement remains intact, but it’s going to take careful work from teachers, scholars and historians to make sure the curriculum expands beyond Chavez,” Rosales said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Teachers Rethink How They Present César Chávez’s Legacy Amid New Scrutiny appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Cal State Chancellor Mildred Garcia announced Wednesday that Morales will spend the coming year advising the university system on international education initiatives and global partnerships as part of a standard executive transition program. He will be paid $343,920 for the one-year assignment, which begins in August.

The trustees also voted unanimously to bestow Morales with the title of president emeritus, an honorary designation recognizing his 14 years of service to the San Bernardino campus.

Morales announced last August that this would be his final year leading the university, and his departure officially took effect at the close of the spring term. His exit came after a 2023 lawsuit accused him, along with former Palm Desert campus dean Jake Zhu, of gender-based discrimination, harassment and retaliation. Two former administrators, Clare Weber and Anissa Rogers, claimed they were pushed out of their jobs after raising concerns about a gender pay gap and a hostile work environment. Cal State settled the case for $12 million while denying any wrongdoing.

Because the university system determined Morales remained “in good standing,” he qualifies for the transition program, which is generally closed off to executives found to have violated policy or engaged in serious misconduct.

Weber, who said she was terminated weeks after emailing Morales to request a raise she believed would help close a gender-based pay disparity, argued the university’s handling of the matter sends the wrong message.

“Male Cal State employees are protected when they behave badly, when they mistreat women, when they harass women, when they retaliate against them,” Weber said. “The tendency is to protect the university.”

Morales’ office did not respond to requests for comment.

During his year in the transition role, Morales will be required to submit monthly progress reports to the chancellor’s office detailing his work, according to university policy. He is also expected to assist incoming Cal State San Bernardino President S. Terri Gomez as she takes over the role Aug. 3. Gomez currently serves as provost and vice president of academic affairs at Cal Poly Pomona.

“President Tomás Morales has served Cal State San Bernardino with distinction for 14 years, demonstrating exceptional leadership on behalf of the university and his students,” Garcia told trustees.

Gomez’s new contract includes an annual salary of $426,916, a $60,000 yearly housing allowance and a $1,000 monthly auto allowance. She earned $338,255 in base pay in 2024, according to Transparent California salary data.

Morales, meanwhile, was among the highest-paid employees in the Cal State system last year, earning $527,834 — the sixth-highest salary systemwide, trailing only the chancellor and four other campus presidents, according to the State Controller’s Office. By comparison, the average Cal State employee earned $39,870 in 2024. Only 69 of the system’s nearly 119,000 employees earned more than the $343,920 Morales will collect during his consulting year.

The California Faculty Association’s San Bernardino chapter pushed back on the arrangement this week, calling on Cal State to investigate administrators involved in the discrimination allegations and to withhold transition benefits from Morales, according to a social media post from the union.

Cal State spokesperson Amy Bentley-Smith confirmed that during the transition period, Morales will move into the university’s Management Personnel Plan, which grants him the same employment rights and benefits as other university managers. She did not respond to questions about what position, if any, Morales is expected to take once his consulting assignment ends next August — a detail that, under 2022 board policy, should typically be determined in advance.

No trustees on the committee asked questions or offered comment following Garcia’s announcement of Morales’ new role.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Former Cal State President Who Resigned Amid Discrimination Lawsuit Awarded $340K University Position appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The California State University Board of Trustees is set to review a transition plan for President Tomas Morales on Wednesday and decide whether to grant him the title of president emeritus.

According to Cal State spokesperson Amy Bentley-Smith, details of Morales’ proposed new position and compensation will be released during Wednesday’s meeting. Morales earned $655,626 in pay and benefits in 2024, the most recent year for which figures are available through TransparentCalifornia.

The trustees’ decision comes just months after Cal State paid $12 million to settle a lawsuit brought by two former university administrators, Clare Weber and Anissa Rogers, who accused Morales and former Palm Desert campus dean Jake Zhu of gender-based harassment and discrimination. The university system has denied any wrongdoing. Zhu has since retired with emeritus status, and Morales remains in good standing with the university.

Morales announced in the spring that he would step down at the end of this academic year. Because of his tenure and standing, he qualifies for a coveted executive transition program that would allow him to return to a faculty position with full retirement benefits.

On Wednesday, a board committee will review the details of Morales’ transition arrangement, and later that day, the full board will consider a recommendation from Chancellor Mildred Garcia to name him president emeritus.

A Pattern of Harassment, Lawsuit Alleged

Weber and Rogers, both former high-ranking officials at Cal State San Bernardino, filed suit in 2023, describing the university as a breeding ground for gender-based harassment and discrimination.

Weber served as associate vice president and vice provost of academic affairs starting in 2017, while Rogers worked as associate dean of the Palm Desert satellite campus beginning in 2019. During the 2021-22 academic year, both women raised concerns to university leadership about what they described as clear evidence of a gender pay gap and sexual harassment within their departments. According to their complaint, both were pushed out almost immediately after speaking up.

Rogers, who worked under Zhu at the time, said she feared that being fired outright would damage her career, so she agreed to resign. Weber refused to step down and was ultimately terminated.

“The lawsuit really shows a pattern of sexist, systemic harassment,” Weber said in an interview. “It largely came from President Morales.”

Bentley-Smith said the university thoroughly reviewed all allegations in the lawsuit and resolved the matter through the settlement.

Weber and Rogers have since submitted a public comment urging trustees to closely examine Morales’ record before approving his transition benefits.

Allegations of Verbal Abuse

According to the lawsuit, Morales had a long-documented pattern of aggressive behavior toward female employees, including yelling, excessive criticism, and holding women to harsher standards than their male colleagues.

Concerns about his leadership style predate the lawsuit by years. A 2016 survey found that more than 60% of Cal State San Bernardino employees believed campus morale had worsened under his leadership. The following year, the faculty senate passed a formal vote of no confidence, citing what it called a toxic environment marked by fear, favoritism and retaliation.

Even before arriving in San Bernardino, Morales faced similar criticism. In 2012, while serving as president of the College of Staten Island, more than half of that school’s faculty senate voted to censure his leadership just months before his departure.

“It was very much his way or no way, especially for women,” Weber said. “I was scolded, humiliated, yelled at. Other colleagues went through the same thing.”

Weber said the constant tension made it difficult to do her job effectively.

“I felt isolated sometimes, like I was the only one — but I think other women felt that too,” she said.

In May 2022, a study conducted by the California State University Employees Union found that white male employees across the Cal State system earned roughly 3% more than men of color, 5% more than white women, and 7% more than women of color.

Weber decided to look into her own pay. After consulting with a compensation specialist in the campus human resources office, she determined she was the lowest-paid vice provost across the entire Cal State system. She also found that, apart from two outliers earning slightly less, every female vice president in the system earned less than every male vice president in a comparable role.

In June 2022, Weber met with her supervisor at the time, interim provost Rafik Mohamed, to raise concerns about the pay disparity.

“I was scared,” she said. “I had my data ready. I wrote myself little notes of encouragement before the meeting.”

She had reason to feel confident going in. She had recently helped the university secure regional accreditation, launched a new strategic plan, and received the highest possible rating — “exceptional leadership” — in a mid-year performance review just weeks earlier.

According to the lawsuit, Mohamed instead tried to pile on additional responsibilities during the meeting. Weber asked for a 12% equity-based raise and voiced concern about a gender pay gap. Mohamed said he would pass along her concerns. Weber also emailed Morales directly with the same request.

Four weeks later, Mohamed told Weber she would need to resign, saying he could no longer work with her, according to the complaint.

Weber responded in a written protest to Morales.

“I explicitly raised concerns that these vice provosts were being paid less because of their gender,” she wrote. “I am shocked and saddened that the CSU’s response to my concerns has been to subject me to unprecedented and unwarranted criticism, and, within a month, to ask me to ‘resign’ my position. This is highly offensive, completely discriminatory, and retaliatory.”

She asked Morales to withdraw the resignation request and open a formal investigation into the pay equity concerns. According to Weber, she was terminated the very next day and returned to a faculty teaching position, as outlined in her original appointment letter.

Mohamed did not respond to requests for comment. Morales’ office referred inquiries to the university’s marketing and communications office, which also did not respond.

Allegations From the Palm Desert Campus

Rogers joined Cal State San Bernardino’s Palm Desert campus in 2019, describing it at the time as her dream job.

“The interview process was perfect,” she said. “Then I quickly realized I had walked into a nightmare.”

Rogers said the culture at the satellite campus, under then-dean Jake Zhu, was marked by open sexism. She said Zhu was known for yelling at employees, particularly women, and that male staffers began mimicking his tone in meetings — even those who were otherwise respectful colleagues.

Women, she said, struggled to speak up in meetings without being interrupted, dismissed as “too emotional,” or talked over, while men were treated with deference. Eventually, Rogers said she stopped presenting her own ideas directly and instead relayed them through a male colleague, who often received a warmer reception.

Multiple employees testified under oath in the lawsuit that Zhu publicly treated Rogers — the second-highest-ranking official on the satellite campus — as though she were a secretary or assistant.

“It was awful,” Rogers said. “I hated going to work every day. My anxiety spiked. I was constantly on edge.”

Tensions boiled over during an October 2021 staff gathering that Rogers did not attend. According to colleagues who later described the meeting to her, several men aggressively questioned an interim associate dean for roughly 25 minutes about preparations for an upcoming visit from a Cal State trustee. Zhu witnessed the exchange and did not intervene, prompting several employees to walk out in protest.

That same day, Rogers approached Zhu and told him the university needed to do more to address sexism on campus. According to the lawsuit, Zhu responded that he could train the men to behave differently — despite the fact that they reported directly to him. He reportedly told another faculty member who complained about the meeting that the men were likely just trying to impress him.

According to sworn testimony, Jolene Koester, who served as interim chancellor from 2022 to 2023, was brought in to counsel Zhu on his conduct in late October 2021. Around the same time, Rogers also reported Zhu’s behavior to Koester directly.

In November 2021, Mohamed told Rogers she needed to announce her resignation to colleagues, citing a vague “leadership issue” that he did not elaborate on, according to the lawsuit. He reportedly told her it was her only path toward career advancement. She resigned effective Jan. 1, 2022, and returned to a teaching role.

“I call it a firing,” Rogers said. “I was told, ‘Either you leave or you get fired.'”

The joint lawsuit filed by Weber and Rogers was eventually split into separate trials. In October 2025, a jury awarded Rogers $6 million in damages, while Weber reached a separate settlement of the same amount to avoid trial. During his testimony, Zhu defended his leadership style, saying he treated all employees equally.

“I raised my voice to make my point clear, to change the tone — not out of ill intent or in a discriminatory way,” he testified, according to court transcripts.

During his own testimony, Mohamed acknowledged that he failed to report several complaints related to Zhu’s alleged treatment of women, saying he viewed the allegations as involving only “low-level bias” — despite being legally obligated under Cal State policy to report sexual harassment complaints.

“We all have biases. We all carry biases shaped by our upbringing and the environments we come from,” Mohamed said. “In my view, simply alleging bias doesn’t automatically trigger a Title IX reporting obligation. It’s the action stemming from that bias that triggers the duty to report.”

Mohamed did not respond to requests for comment regarding his role in Weber and Rogers’ departures. He announced his retirement on July 16 in an internal email to faculty that was reviewed by CalMatters. Zhu also did not respond to requests for comment.

Transition Package Still Awaiting Approval

Following his retirement in June 2023, Zhu returned to teaching and now holds emeritus faculty status.

Morales, meanwhile, is positioned to receive an executive transition package that would allow him to move into a faculty role while remaining on the university payroll until he begins another position within the Cal State system. Under board policy adopted in 2022, executives completing this transition program must remain in good standing throughout the process — and can be disqualified if found to have violated university policy or engaged in serious misconduct.

In a statement issued in May, the San Bernardino chapter of the California Faculty Association urged trustees not to approve executive transition benefits for Morales.

“The lawsuit raises serious questions about whether President Morales should be considered eligible for those benefits,” said Thomas Corrigan, a communication and media studies professor and the chapter’s communications coordinator. “The case involving Dr. Rogers and Dr. Weber really stands out as a moral failure with exceptional financial, reputational and human costs.”

After Weber and Rogers filed their joint lawsuit in March 2023, Weber said Cal State finally opened a formal investigation into her original 2022 pay equity complaint. Two months later, the university system sent her a salary analysis claiming that seven vice provosts — including four men — earned less than she did.

Weber called the analysis a “sham.”

“They had a male vice provost listed who wasn’t drawing any salary at all. They included people who ranked below me, people who reported directly to me,” she said.

Weber said the analysis was conducted by Jeanne Durr, former interim associate vice president of human resources at Cal State San Bernardino. Durr did not respond to requests for comment.

In July 2023, the California State Auditor released a report examining how the Cal State system handles sexual harassment complaints. Investigators found that several campuses closed out harassment cases without adequate justification and failed to consistently discipline offenders. The audit issued 16 recommendations for reform, including standardized investigation guidelines, regular compliance reviews and a unified case management system across all campuses.

In 2024, a new state law — Assembly Bill 1790 — made it a legal requirement for Cal State to implement those recommendations by July 1, 2026. As of that deadline, one recommendation remained outstanding: creating a systemwide method for tracking and analyzing sexual harassment data. The Chancellor’s Office says it expects to complete that work by June 2027.

Weber continued teaching sociology at Cal State San Bernardino for four more years before resigning as part of her settlement agreement.

“My faculty colleagues were wonderful,” Weber said. “But I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t scared to go to campus. I had a lot of panic attacks. I planned my route across campus specifically to avoid running into any of the administrators who hurt me.”

Rogers left her teaching position at the university about two years after her departure from administration.

“In the end, it killed any desire I had to advance in my career. I have zero interest now, which is a shame. I had hoped to become a dean one day, but I won’t even try,” Rogers said. “I’ve lost faith in the system.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Cal State President Facing $12 Million Discrimination Lawsuit Named Candidate for Transition Role appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Under a provision that took effect this month, schools must show that graduates of a given program earn at least as much as the typical worker in their state who holds only a high school diploma — in California, that benchmark is roughly $36,000 a year, or about $18 an hour, just above the state’s minimum wage. Programs that fail to clear that bar risk losing their students’ access to federal loans.

It’s not a particularly high bar to clear, according to Michael Itzkowitz, president of the HEA Group, a research organization that studies higher education policy. “If you go to college, you expect to earn at least minimum wage, and probably more than that,” he said.

In high-cost regions such as the Bay Area, $36,000 a year barely covers rent, let alone other living expenses.

Of nearly 3,000 California higher education programs reviewed by the U.S. Department of Education, about 90% produced graduates who cleared that income threshold, according to Itzkowitz’s analysis. But roughly 300 programs statewide — many in cosmetology, medical assisting, and the arts — fell short, with graduates earning less than $36,000 four years after finishing their studies.

Most of the underperforming programs are run by for-profit institutions, sometimes described as trade schools or vocational colleges, which have faced scrutiny for decades — including from state lawmakers — over poor outcomes and steep tuition costs. But the list also includes programs at public colleges and universities, among them theater and fine arts programs at eight California State University campuses and three University of California campuses.

Schools still have at least two years to prove to federal regulators that their graduates meet the new earnings standard. If underperforming programs don’t improve, their students could lose access to federal loans starting July 1, 2028.

CalMatters reached out to more than 15 universities, community colleges and for-profit trade schools to ask about the future of programs with low-earning graduates, but few responded. Spokespeople for both the UC and CSU systems said their institutions are reviewing the new federal rule but declined to answer most other questions. CSU spokesperson Amy Bentley-Smith said campuses are working toward “constructive solutions.”

One of the few schools willing to discuss the issue was CalArts, the private arts institute near Santa Clarita whose alumni include actor Don Cheadle, filmmaker and animator Tim Burton, and comedian Paul Reubens, better known as Pee-wee Herman. Graduates of the school’s fine arts, film and photography programs report some of the lowest earnings of any bachelor’s degree program in the state — just under $30,000 four years after graduation.

School officials offered several explanations in an interview, pointing to data limitations and fundamental differences between arts careers and more traditional career paths. Ranu Mukherjee, dean of the school’s film and video program, said creative careers often take longer to become financially stable, and many graduates deliberately turn down higher-paying corporate jobs to pursue their craft.

Just over 30 fine arts, music, theater, film and photography programs in California fail to meet the new earnings test.

Mukherjee said CalArts has no plans to shut down any of the affected programs, though she emphasized the importance of being transparent with students about potential future consequences. “It’s hard to imagine CalArts without an undergraduate film or arts program,” she said. “It’s in our name.”

About 100 other fine arts, music, theater, film and photography programs in California do meet the new income requirement, according to current Department of Education data. Among them are UC Berkeley’s film program and fine arts programs at San Diego City College and the University of Southern California, where graduates report earning more than $70,000 four years after finishing school.

Regulatory Ping-Pong

Over the years, the federal government has repeatedly tried — and often failed — to hold accountable college programs that leave graduates with poor financial outcomes.

Back in 1989, the U.S. Department of Education barred colleges from distributing certain forms of federal aid if too many of their students had defaulted on student loans. The rule worked at first, forcing the closure of several low-performing schools, but loopholes eventually emerged.

“Institutions have learned how to game the system,” Itzkowitz said, noting that many schools encourage low-income borrowers to request loan deferments or forbearance, which delays repayment and masks default rates. “Nobody fails.”

The Obama administration later proposed a rule tying federal financial aid eligibility to the debt-to-income ratio of specific college programs, meaning schools whose graduates carried high debt and low earnings would face consequences. The Trump administration rescinded those rules before they took effect. A related Biden-era policy met the same fate in 2025, once Trump returned to office.

“We’ve been playing regulatory ping-pong,” Itzkowitz said. “The Department of Education would say, ‘We’re going to do this, we’re not going to do that.’ This law carries more weight because it was written by Congress and signed into law.” That law — known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or HR 1 — was signed on July 4 of last year and took effect this month.

Itzkowitz’s analysis draws on preliminary Department of Education data using 2022 and 2023 tax returns from graduates of the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years. Many schools that failed the new test have pushed back, arguing the numbers are misleading.

It’s too blunt a measurement, wrote Angelica Muro, chair of the visual and public art department at Cal State Monterey Bay, in an email to CalMatters. The new earnings standard “undermines the social benefits of critical thinking and the immense sociocultural value the arts provide,” she added.

According to federal data, fine arts graduates from the school earned around $34,000 four years after graduating, but the Department of Education doesn’t track which industry graduates work in or whether their job relates to their degree. The data also doesn’t account for California’s regional differences, such as the smaller creative economy in the largely rural coastal area surrounding Cal State Monterey Bay, Muro wrote.

Some of the highest-earning fine arts programs are located in the Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego, where creative-industry jobs and salaries tend to be higher. But even some universities in rural counties and high-poverty regions — including Stanislaus State, Fresno State, Cal State Bakersfield and Chico State — have fine arts programs that meet the new earnings threshold.

Another Loophole?

Of the roughly 300 California programs that failed the new earnings test, more than a quarter are cosmetology or personal care programs, covering fields such as manicuring, hairstyling and skin care. Numerous studies have long documented struggles within cosmetology training, including high debt loads and low post-graduation earnings.

Graduates of the Shasta School of Cosmetology in Redding, for instance, reported earning just over $12,000 four years after finishing the program — far below the state poverty line. CalMatters reached out to 10 cosmetology schools, mostly private, for-profit institutions with the lowest-earning graduates, but none responded.

As the Department of Education finalized its interpretation of the new law, cosmetology schools argued the earnings data was unfair because it doesn’t account for the fact that many barbers and salon owners run their own businesses and may not report tips as taxable income. The department granted these programs an additional year to comply, meaning their graduates won’t lose access to federal loans before July 1, 2029, at the earliest.

The cosmetology industry’s argument rests on “pretty flimsy grounds” and creates another loophole allowing schools to dodge accountability, said Christopher Madaio, senior counsel for federal and state accountability at The Institute for College Access and Success, which advocates for affordable higher education.

Still, he said he supports the new earnings law as a first step. “It wasn’t ambitious enough, and it’s not perfectly written,” he said. “But yes, I’m glad to see it being implemented.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post New Law Holds California Universities Accountable if Graduates Earn Less Than $36,000 a Year appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.