The petition, submitted last week in Alameda County Superior Court, closely mirrors a lawsuit CalMatters filed against UCLA in August. Both cases stem from the campuses’ refusal to disclose payment details following a landmark national legal settlement last year that, for the first time, allows colleges across the country to pay their athletes directly.

UC Berkeley spokesperson Janet Gilmore said in an email Sunday that the university is reviewing the complaint and declined further comment.

The stakes are considerable. Direct payments to college athletes have become one of the most powerful recruiting tools available to universities, and the amount of money flowing into these deals has surged. The commission overseeing NIL compensation nationally cleared more than $227 million in payments during July and August alone — nearly double what was reported during the same period a year earlier. Under current rules, schools are permitted to direct up to $20.5 million toward athlete compensation. At UC Berkeley, Chancellor Richard Lyons said last year that the funding pool draws from athletics revenue, donor contributions and some campus dollars.

CalMatters argues in its filing that Berkeley “has not produced records sufficient to show how those public funds are being distributed.” The lawsuit contends that California taxpayers have a right to know which athletes are being paid, how much, and which teams they represent.

The news organization says it spent nearly a year trying to obtain this information from UC Berkeley, submitting multiple requests under the California Public Records Act to universities statewide. Some campuses provided only minimal data, while others released at least partial records — an inconsistency CalMatters says demonstrates that the payment information it is seeking qualifies as public record.

UC Riverside, for instance, disclosed that it distributed roughly $200,000 to its male athletes, including several payments to members of the men’s basketball team, along with $70,000 to female athletes.

The disparity highlighted by that example touches on a broader legal question. A recent Congressional Research Service report noted that the shift toward direct athlete compensation raises new concerns about compliance with federal sex-based equity requirements in collegiate sports.

Meanwhile, most Division I athletic programs nationwide continue to operate at a financial loss, according to federal data. Both UCLA and UC Berkeley reported athletic department deficits for the 2024-25 academic year, relying on endowment funds or general campus budgets to cover the shortfall.

Andy Schwarz, a sports economics expert and partner at the law firm OSKR, argued in an earlier interview that the distinction between public and private funding within university athletics is largely illusory. “Every single dollar that the university allocates is taxpayer money, whether it’s donated or not,” Schwarz said. “It’s like if you have a bathtub and say the money on the right is public and the money on the left is private, but it’s all bathwater, swirling around.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post CalMatters Sues UC Berkeley Over Access to Student-Athlete Pay Records appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

More than 3,000 UC faculty members have recently signed letters or petitions urging a return to standardized testing, and the Board of Regents could revisit its earlier decision to drop test score requirements. Much of that conversation has centered on a narrow question: do SAT and ACT scores actually help predict which students will thrive academically at UC?

Faculty are split. Some contend that test scores reveal gaps in academic preparation that grade point averages alone don’t capture. Others counter that once a student’s socioeconomic background is factored in, the tests lose much of their predictive value — suggesting they mostly reflect family wealth and access to resources rather than raw ability.

Both arguments matter, but neither addresses a deeper structural issue: how much should the UC system be sorting students into different campuses based on predicted academic performance in the first place?

Picture a typical large public high school. It can’t turn away students who meet basic enrollment requirements. It offers everything from remedial classes to advanced coursework, and a wide mix of students takes those classes according to their interests and readiness.

Now picture two public high schools located in neighborhoods with sharply different income levels. Both receive comparable state funding, but one benefits from significant private donations that give it smaller class sizes and stronger teachers. Unsurprisingly, students there tend to have better outcomes.

The UC system today looks a lot more like that second example than most people realize. Although its ten campuses are technically part of one public university, they function within a clear pecking order.

Take UC Merced and UC Berkeley as an example. Merced actually receives more state funding per student than many other UC campuses. But once you account for private donations and endowment income, Berkeley spends nearly twice as much per student overall.

The disparity shows up in admissions, too. Berkeley’s acceptance rate hovers around 11%, while Merced accepts roughly 95% of applicants. Naturally, students who enter Berkeley tend to arrive with stronger grades and test scores. They’re also more likely to be taught by full-time faculty rather than lecturers. Graduation rates run higher at Berkeley, and so do the starting salaries graduates report after leaving campus.

In other words, the hierarchy baked into the UC system may be deepening — rather than easing — existing social, economic, racial and geographic divides among students.

To be clear, students should meet certain academic standards to enroll in college and to take advanced coursework. But there’s good reason to question whether it makes sense to separate students across entirely different campuses based solely on where they stand academically at age 17 or 18. That kind of stratification carries its own set of consequences, many of them troubling.

California could instead move toward a more integrated approach.

The state already has a modest tool for this: the Eligibility in the Local Context program, which guarantees UC admission somewhere in the system for students who finish in the top 9% of their graduating class at participating high schools. Research shows the program has boosted graduation rates for eligible students who chose a UC campus instead of a Cal State or community college. Even so, most of those students end up at the system’s less selective campuses rather than its flagship schools.

Texas offers a bolder model worth considering. Under its Top Ten Percent Plan, the top-performing students from every public high school in the state earn automatic admission to any Texas public university — including its most prestigious ones. (UT-Austin later narrowed that guarantee to the top 5% of students, but the underlying principle remains.)

That principle is simple but significant: once students clear the bar for admission, the most academically prepared among them shouldn’t automatically be funneled into only the best-funded, most prestigious campuses while everyone else lands elsewhere.

Such a shift wouldn’t come without trade-offs. Campuses would need to adapt to different student populations. Flagship schools might slip in national rankings. Some students could choose to attend elsewhere altogether, and recruiting and retaining top faculty might grow more complicated.

Those trade-offs deserve honest, public discussion. The University of California belongs to the people of a vast and diverse state, and its admissions policies should reflect a deliberate vision of what public higher education is meant to accomplish.

The SAT debate offers a useful opening to ask these bigger questions. As the Board of Regents weighs how to better evaluate California students for admission, it might also ask whether the system has been sorting them too rigidly all along.

Original source: CalMatters

The post UC’s Campus Assignment Process Deserves a Closer Look appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The lawsuit, filed Monday, comes after nearly a year of back-and-forth between CalMatters reporters and UCLA officials over public records requests. It marks an escalation in a broader effort by the news organization to shed light on how California’s public universities are spending money in the post-2021 era of college athlete compensation.

California became one of the first states to let college athletes profit from their name, image and likeness five years ago. Since then, top-tier players — including some at UCLA and UC Berkeley — have earned hundreds of thousands of dollars, in part through deals with their own universities, which pay them to appear in promotional campaigns and marketing materials.

But when CalMatters asked more than a dozen University of California and California State University campuses last fall for records detailing those payments to Division I athletes, the response was uneven. Several schools handed over little or nothing. UCLA and UC Berkeley — home to the two most financially robust athletic programs among the state’s public universities — initially denied the requests outright, claiming disclosure would put their athletes at a competitive disadvantage or infringe on student privacy protections under federal education law.

Both schools eventually turned over some records, but neither would identify which athletes or teams received the payments, even though other campuses had been more transparent. UCLA and UC Berkeley have also argued that the money funding these payments doesn’t come from taxpayers — an assertion that higher education finance experts say is difficult to substantiate. In reality, both UC and CSU campuses routinely cover gaps in their athletic department budgets using tuition revenue, student fees or general fund dollars, all of which include public money.

Frustrated by the lack of transparency, CalMatters filed its lawsuit against UCLA this week, arguing that when a public institution hands out public resources, the public has a right to know who is receiving that money, how much, and under what terms. The organization says it plans to take similar legal action against UC Berkeley.

The case adds to a growing list of questions surrounding the intersection of college sports, student compensation and public accountability in California — an issue likely to draw continued scrutiny as name, image and likeness deals become an increasingly significant part of university athletic budgets statewide.

Original source: CalMatters

The post CalMatters Sues UCLA After University Withholds Records on Athlete Pay appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The legal action, filed Monday, comes after CalMatters sent public records requests last fall to 16 University of California and California State University campuses asking for details on payments made to Division I athletes. Most schools gave vague or incomplete responses. CalMatters argues that because these are public institutions spending public resources, taxpayers have a right to know exactly who is being paid, how much, and under what terms.

“When public institutions distribute public resources, the public is entitled to know who receives those resources, in what amounts, and on what terms,” the lawsuit states. A UC system spokesperson, Stett Holbrook, said the university intends to “respond appropriately in court” and that it takes both the California Public Records Act and student privacy seriously.

The dispute centers on a fairly new practice: direct payments from universities to athletes, which became legal only last summer following a landmark court settlement. These payments compensate students for the use of their name, image and likeness — commonly called NIL — in university-sanctioned promotions, and they also serve as a recruiting tool, helping schools lure top talent or keep players from transferring elsewhere for better deals.

UCLA and UC Berkeley, home to the state’s most high-profile and financially significant athletic programs, initially refused to release records, citing concerns about competitive disadvantage and student privacy. After CalMatters’ attorneys at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP pushed back, both campuses eventually released some data. The numbers show that each school spent roughly $20.5 million on athlete payments during the 2025-26 academic year — the maximum allowed. UCLA reported paying 229 athletes; UC Berkeley reported 147.

Neither school, however, would say which athletes or teams received the money, a level of transparency that some other California universities did provide.

“We’re simply asking these public institutions to follow the law,” said CalMatters CEO Neil Chase, “and explain what’s being done with tens of millions of taxpayer dollars.” Chase said his organization spent months trying to negotiate a compromise that would satisfy privacy concerns while still providing basic transparency, but ultimately felt legal action was necessary. He said a similar suit targeting UC Berkeley is being prepared.

Two campuses stood out for their relative openness: San Diego State and UC Riverside. UC Riverside reported paying its male athletes about $200,000 — much of it going to the men’s basketball program — along with $70,000 for female athletes, though the university didn’t break down most of the individual payments. San Diego State disclosed that it paid its athletes at least $8.6 million during the 2025-26 school year, with more than 60% going to football and most of the remainder to men’s basketball. Female athletes at San Diego State received only about 3% of the total payments, and the university did not specify how many individual players were compensated.

Private universities such as USC and Stanford are exempt from these public records requirements altogether, since state disclosure laws only apply to public institutions.

Universities have long insisted that athletic spending doesn’t come directly from taxpayers, often describing these payments as “revenue-sharing” tied to ticket sales, media rights and sponsorship income. But experts say that framing oversimplifies — or obscures — how the money actually flows.

Nationally, most Division I athletic programs actually lose money. A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office report found the median college athletic department lost about $20 million in the 2023-24 academic year. Within the UC and Cal State systems, shortfalls are often covered using tuition revenue, student fees or general fund dollars — which include state tax money. At UCLA, about 20% of the athletic budget in 2024-25 came from the university’s endowment or general fund; at UC Berkeley, it was nearly 30%. Both programs still ran multimillion-dollar deficits that year. At smaller programs like UC Riverside, general fund and endowment dollars cover the majority of athletic costs.

“Every single dollar that the university allocates is taxpayer money, whether it’s donated or not,” said Andy Schwarz, a sports economist and partner at the law firm OSKR. “It’s like if you have a bathtub and say the money on the right is public and the money on the left is private, but it’s all bathwater, swirling around.”

Despite the shift toward direct payments, the NCAA still bars schools from paying athletes simply to play — a practice known as “pay-for-play.” The change stems from a 2025 legal settlement in a class-action lawsuit brought by former Arizona State swimmer Grant House and former Oregon women’s basketball player Sedona Prince. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken approved the deal last spring, and it took effect July 1, 2025.

Many UC and Cal State campuses provided CalMatters with template contracts used with athletes. Though the agreements explicitly state they are not “pay-for-play,” they typically require students to continue competing in their sport in order to keep receiving payments — a distinction that some experts say is largely semantic.

“The marketability value of a CSU athlete, completely stripped away from the field, is worth functionally nothing,” said Matt Brown, who runs the college sports business newsletter Extra Points.

The contracts uniformly state that athletes are not university employees. UC San Diego classifies its athletes as “independent contractors,” while most other schools avoid defining their employment status altogether. San Jose State’s agreement specifically states that athletes are not eligible for workers’ compensation.

UCLA’s contract goes further still, stipulating that athletes cannot sue the university over employment-related claims. Students are encouraged to consult a parent, attorney or agent before signing — but if they don’t, they waive any right to challenge the agreement based on lack of representation.

Unlike professional athletes, college players remain without union representation, despite unionization attempts at Dartmouth College and USC. “Essentially what the colleges want is all the benefits of collective bargaining without having to give up any of the downsides that professional sports leagues agree to with their unions, such as minimum salaries and worker compensation if there are injuries,” Schwarz said.

While professional sports salaries are typically public record — even though the leagues themselves are private entities — college athlete pay remains largely hidden from view. Similar public records lawsuits have been filed by journalists and transparency advocates in New Mexico, Louisiana and South Carolina, all seeking disclosure of university payments to student athletes.

Separately, athletes are still allowed to pursue outside NIL deals with brands, on top of whatever compensation they receive from their universities. California was at the forefront of this shift, passing a 2019 law that first allowed college athletes to profit from endorsement deals — a move that sparked similar legislation across the country.

CalMatters previously reported on the scope of these brand partnerships, which have tended to favor football players, men’s basketball standouts, and a handful of high-profile women’s teams, including UCLA gymnastics — home to Olympic gold medalist Jordan Chiles — and Fresno State women’s basketball, which featured social media stars Haley and Hanna Cavinder. Companies including Toyota, Nike, H&R Block and Bumble, along with the 2024 Biden campaign, have signed endorsement deals worth as much as $300,000 with California college athletes. But the largest sums often come from university-affiliated booster groups known as “collectives,” which funnel donor contributions into athlete payments with minimal public disclosure.

At UC San Diego, records show 18 NIL contracts signed since last July, totaling roughly $560,000 in direct payments — though the university would not say which athletes or teams benefited. The school also launched a new donor collective, the SD Tide Collective. About a week after its formation, members of the men’s basketball team received nearly $500,000 in additional payments from an affiliated group, Tide LLC, for “social media/licensing/appearances.” UC San Diego did not respond to questions about the arrangement or how many players received the funds.

By contrast, UC Santa Barbara saw a steep decline in private NIL deals. In 2024-25, athletes — mostly from the men’s basketball team — reported earning more than $200,000 through such deals. This past year, that figure dropped to roughly $1,000 spread across just 11 agreements.

Even so, overall compensation appears to be rising as universities take on more of the payments directly. UC Santa Barbara paid its athletes nearly $1.4 million during the 2025-26 academic year. As with most schools, the university declined to specify how funds were distributed among individual players or teams, but confirmed that only 26 agreements were signed — meaning the vast majority of its athletes received no compensation at all.

Original source: CalMatters

The post CalMatters Sues California Public Universities Over Secrecy on Athlete Pay appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Caris Sandino, 28, of Beaumont, was one of the two MSJC graduates to receive the prestigious Jack Kent Cooke Undergraduate Scholarship. The coveted scholarship was awarded to only 60 students across the nation. She said joining the MSJC Honors Enrichment Program was one of the best decisions she’s made.  

“I am really happy with my experience at MSJC,” Sandino said. “It helped me grow personally and academically as well.” 

Of the 2,183 students earning degrees and certificates this year, 974 graduates walked in one of two ceremonies, marking the highest number of students to date participating in commencement. The MSJC Class of 2024 earned a total of 2,848 degrees and certificates, as some students earn more than one degree, certificate or a combination of both.  

The ceremony honored the college district’s 60th anniversary with the theme “A Legacy of Transformation.” MSJC began its anniversary celebration in the 2023-24 academic year to mark the 1963 opening of the college. Its first graduating class was celebrated in 1965, with a total of eight students.  

Sandino came to the U.S. from Nicaragua when she was 11 with her mother and is the first in her family to graduate from college. She founded MSJC’s Eagles DREAMers Club, which provides a safe space for undocumented students to network, advocate, and get the support they need to succeed.  

“Launching Eagles DREAMers has been one of the most personally meaningful accomplishments in my college journey,” Sandino said. “It’s been an incredible privilege to advocate for and support our undocumented student community, knowing that our efforts have the power to impact lives and foster inclusivity within our college community.”  

Her leadership and hard work in the classroom helped her earn the Cooke scholarship.  Sandino will transfer to the University of California, Berkeley to major in business administration.  

Temecula resident Joseph Awad, who served as Student Trustee this past year at MSJC, was the second MSJC graduate to receive the Cooke scholarship in 2024. Awad will transfer to the University of California, Los Angeles to major in psychology.  

Like Sandino, Awad joined the Honors Enrichment Program and was recognized for several significant research projects, including an Outstanding Abstract award from the Honors Transfer Council of California’s Research Conference held at University of California, Riverside in April for his research on “Contextualizing the Lived Experiences of Queer Arabs: Understanding the Dimensions & Manifestations of Fear.”  

Awad, 20, said his experiences and success seem surreal given his background as a self-described “first-generation, queer, Arab immigrant, wannabe college student.” He credited his success to his mentors and “many kind souls at MSJC.” 

“I hope the past three years of my life can show how much you can change somebody’s life by investing in them and their story, and for that I’ll always be grateful,” Awad said.  

Lake Elsinore residents Eric Ellis, 35, and his wife, Carolyn Ellis, 38, celebrated a milestone as they crossed the stage together. Eric, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran with deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, plans to become a social worker to support fellow veterans in their mental health journeys. 

Carolyn plans to transfer to Loma Linda University to become a surgical technician.  

“MSJC provided all the building blocks we needed to reach our goals and have meaningful careers,” Carolyn Ellis said. 

Jilema Silver, 44, of San Jacinto, said she was proud to graduate MSJC with her son, Cameron Britt, 23. Silver said she started pursuing a degree in business, but through her work at MSJC’s Veterans Resource Center, she decided to receive a second degree in psychology so she could help others. In addition, Silver served as the vice president of the Student Government Association, went to a conference in Washington, D.C. and learned how important it was to “speak up on matters.”  

“I love MSJC,” Silver said before the ceremony. “I love everything that it’s done for me, [and] the professors and I just grew as a person.” 

Silver is transferring to California State University, San Bernardino and said her son is already earning money with his degree in digital media, serving in a paid internship through the city of Menifee. 

Silver served as a student speaker during the morning graduation ceremony. She thanked her son for sharing in the journey, faculty for their support, and peers for becoming friends and companions.  

“As we step out into the world, let us do so with heads held high, knowing that the legacy of transformation we leave behind will continue to inspire and uplift others for generations to come,” Silver told the Class of 2024. “I leave you with these final words: Remember you can do anything and everything – except give up.” 

The post Mt. San Jacinto College Celebrates “A Legacy of Transformation” at the 2024 Commencement  appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.