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 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.

Proposition 38 would authorize $8.4 billion in state bonds to fund research into immunotherapies aimed at combating cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s and other conditions. More than half of that total — over $4 billion — is earmarked for a single research institute that goes unnamed anywhere in the ballot language. Instead, the measure lays out a dense list of qualifications so specific that, according to a CalMatters review, only one organization in California appears able to meet them: the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, a nonprofit affiliated with UCLA.

That detail matters because one of the institute’s co-founders, billionaire Gary K. Michelson, is also among the leading financial backers of the Yes on Proposition 38 campaign.

Political scientists who study California’s initiative process say the measure’s language raises red flags. Sarah Hill, a professor at Cal State Fullerton, said the criteria written into Prop. 38 are so narrowly tailored that they read like a blueprint pointing to one specific recipient, even though that recipient is never named.

“It is very clearly designed to support a specific nonprofit,” Hill said, adding that the bond’s oddly precise numerical thresholds should catch the attention of anyone reading closely. She questioned why half of the bond’s funding would flow to a single institute rather than being distributed more broadly among the state’s research community.

Hill also noted that splitting the bond into two pots — one for the unnamed institute and another for competitive grants open to other universities and nonprofits — may be a strategic move designed to make the overall measure look more inclusive than it actually is. “They’re trying to get people to focus there, but would half of the money still be designated for one nonprofit? Essentially, yes,” she said.

She suspects the campaign is banking on voters not digging deep enough to notice, instead responding favorably to the measure’s feel-good promise of curing serious diseases. Similar dynamics played out in 2024, when voters narrowly approved Proposition 34, a measure that appeared tailored to target a single organization, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, without naming it outright.

Financial ties run deep between the ballot measure and the research institute expected to benefit most. Michelson, a spinal surgeon turned inventor who made his fortune through medical patents, co-founded the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, which became a nonprofit in 2022. He chairs its board and has personally donated more than $120 million to the organization. The institute operates out of research space owned by UCLA.

Michelson and a policy nonprofit he founded, the Michelson Center for Public Policy, have contributed at least $8.2 million to the Yes on 38 campaign. Meyer Luskin, another co-founder of the immunology institute, has kicked in at least $5 million of his own.

The bond measure’s eligibility requirements for the $4.2 billion award are notably precise. The recipient must be a nonprofit founded before 2025, focused specifically on immunology and immunotherapy rather than research in general, and affiliated with a UC campus whose medical center serves a substantial patient population — at minimum, 3.5 million outpatient visits and 35,000 inpatient admissions annually. According to the university system’s most recent financial audit, only UCLA’s medical network clears that bar, with 4.1 million outpatient visits in 2025. UC San Francisco was next closest, with 3.4 million.

Additional requirements call for a research facility of at least 200,000 square feet devoted primarily to immunology and immunotherapy work, and evidence that the organization has already raised at least $250 million in private philanthropic support. The California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy has reportedly secured exactly that amount, and press materials indicate its planned UCLA facility will span between 360,000 and 500,000 square feet.

The bond text goes further, requiring that top UCLA administrators sit on the winning institute’s governing board — a requirement already satisfied by the immunology institute, whose board includes UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk and Vice Chancellor for Research Roger Wakimoto, among other senior campus officials.

Perhaps most telling, the measure specifies that the qualifying institute must have received two donations of at least $50 million each — one supporting rapid vaccine development, the other supporting microbiome research. Those descriptions closely mirror language used in a 2024 announcement detailing Michelson’s $120 million gift to the institute, which funded programs matching both descriptions almost word for word.

A UCLA spokesperson, Phil Hampton, confirmed to CalMatters that among nonprofits affiliated with the university, only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy meets the bond’s criteria.

Not everyone in the scientific community is on board. Robert Kaplan, a former associate director at the National Institutes of Health and now a senior scholar at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, said funneling such a large sum to one institution shortchanges the broader research landscape. “There is a lot of talent in immunology, immunotherapy research in California,” he said. “All the institutions are scrambling, and so tracking a huge portion of it to one institution, I think, is a bad idea.” Kaplan also questioned whether the bond’s narrow focus on immunotherapy comes at the expense of other valuable biomedical research.

The remaining roughly $4 billion in bond funding would be distributed through a competitive grant process overseen by a council made up of representatives from seven of the University of California’s 10 campuses — excluding UC Merced, UC Santa Barbara and UC Santa Cruz — along with officials from other universities and nonprofit research organizations. Winning projects must focus on immunology and immunotherapy and can only come from institutions represented on that council. Notably, grant recipients would be required to maintain close ties with the very institute receiving the larger $4.2 billion share, which would have a hand in helping select which outside projects get funded and would be entitled to participate in resulting clinical trials.

Campaign spokesperson Claudia Briggs defended the measure’s structure when presented with CalMatters’ findings, saying the criteria were not written with any single organization in mind. “We wrote the measure to ensure a highly qualified nonprofit could receive funding,” she said, adding that the campaign could not speak to which specific institutions across the state might or might not qualify. She said the requirements were designed to ensure that whichever institute is ultimately selected has adequate infrastructure, an established relationship with a UC campus, and a track record of financial stewardship needed to put the money to immediate use.

Briggs also defended UCLA’s outsized role in the bond’s framework, pointing to its position as the UC system’s largest health network and its location in the state’s most populous and diverse region.

Should voters approve Prop. 38, the bond would cost the state roughly $500 million a year for 25 years, bringing the total repayment to more than $12 billion once interest is factored in, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. That cost could be offset if drug therapies developed through the funded research generate revenue that flows back to the state. The measure also requires a 20% discount on resulting drugs for California residents and directs 10% of related revenue back to the state’s general fund.

Backers argue the investment is necessary given the instability of federal research funding in recent years, including a wave of canceled grants tied to funding cuts ordered by the Trump administration, though many of those grants were later reinstated. If no institute meets the bond’s criteria, the measure allows the California Department of Public Health to revise the requirements to identify a qualifying recipient.

The Michelson Center for Public Policy, which is chaired by Gary Michelson, has also contributed between $1,000 and $9,900 to CalMatters.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Does This $4 Billion Proposition Amount to a Handout for a Billionaire-Backed LA Research Center? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Attorneys representing UC researchers say the admission is significant — proof, in their view, that the agencies unlawfully stripped nearly $2 billion in funding. It marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing lawsuit brought by UC researchers against the Trump administration, who are fighting to get their grants restored for good. The researchers’ legal team is now asking a federal judge to skip a trial altogether and rule outright that the White House repeatedly violated the Constitution, including the First Amendment. A hearing on that request is set for October 20.

The keyword admissions came in stipulations signed and filed last week in federal court in a case known as Thakur v. Trump, which has been working its way through the system since last spring.

According to those stipulations, the agencies “did not rescind any grant for alleged noncompliance with the terms of the grant itself.” Instead, plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote, the agencies applied “generalized criteria, rather than grant-specific evaluation of compliance or performance.” Lawyers for the UC faculty argue this reveals three sweeping constitutional violations.

First, by running keyword searches across hundreds of grants and canceling them in bulk rather than reviewing each one on its individual merits, the administration effectively targeted research it viewed as politically unfavorable — a violation of the First Amendment.

Second, by canceling 283 Department of Energy grants in states that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election while leaving similar grants untouched in Republican-leaning states, the administration unfairly punished researchers simply for living in states it opposed politically.

Third, by canceling billions in grants without redirecting that money toward other approved funding opportunities, the administration failed to spend federal research dollars the way Congress specifically directed through the laws it passed — a violation in its own right.

On July 16, CalMatters asked the U.S. Department of Justice, which is defending the federal agencies in court, whether it agreed that the stipulations amounted to an admission that the Trump administration violated researchers’ constitutional rights. A department spokesperson had not responded by the time of publication.

A history of legal setbacks for the administration

U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin has repeatedly sided with UC researchers throughout the case, issuing a string of preliminary orders forcing federal agencies to reinstate grants while she considers the underlying legal questions. That has included restoring hundreds of grants at UCLA that the administration tried to freeze over allegations that the university tolerated antisemitism and allowed transgender women to compete on women’s sports teams.

Those same allegations later fueled a White House demand that UCLA pay $1.2 billion or face another wave of research funding freezes. But months before that demand was made, UCLA had already taken steps to address antisemitism on campus, including forming a task force to recommend ways to make the campus more welcoming for Jewish students.

Lin, a Biden appointee, criticized the administration in a separate but related preliminary order for ignoring those efforts. She wrote that the government’s justification for canceling the grants made no mention of the corrective steps UCLA had already taken to address the very concerns it cited.

Attorneys for the professors in the Thakur case are now asking Lin to issue a final ruling ordering the grants restored, rather than another preliminary order. Even so, the federal government could still appeal any decision Lin makes to a higher court.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote that the stakes are enormous. If the administration is allowed to pull this funding, they argued, “researchers, graduate students and program staff who depended on the grants to develop the work of their lifetimes will suffer significant harm to their reputations and their professional careers.”

The attorneys warned of potentially life-saving cures that may never be developed, new understanding of diseases that will go unexplored, and a decline in the nation’s standing as a global leader in publicly funded research.

Keyword searches used to flag disfavored grants

A CalMatters review of the newly filed court documents found that federal agencies used keyword searches in a variety of ways.

The Department of Transportation identified six grants worth roughly $42 million for cancellation because they sought to advance “transportation equity,” prioritized “disadvantaged communities,” or focused on “workforce diversification” in transportation and “equity” more broadly.

The cancellation of three of those grants, led by a UC Davis professor, forced 77 researchers to abandon 79 ongoing projects. Plaintiffs’ attorneys said the project leaders also had to lay off or scramble to find new funding for more than 40 graduate and undergraduate research assistants.

The National Institutes of Health admitted using an internal search tool to identify UC grants that referenced terms such as “health equity,” “workforce diversity,” “structural racism” and “sexual orientation.” NIH alone suspended or canceled more than 1,000 UC grants, including nearly 700 at UCLA, covering research on vaccines, cancer and disparities in health outcomes. That figure, recently disclosed in court filings, is notably higher than the roughly 500 NIH grant cancellations UCLA had previously reported last year. The health research agency also acknowledged that DOGE — the short-lived federal office once led by billionaire Elon Musk — may have used artificial intelligence to help identify grants for elimination.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys told the judge these admissions show that the agencies “identified the viewpoints they wanted to suppress, searched the grants they funded for those that expressed those viewpoints, and canceled those grants for that reason” — a direct violation of researchers’ First Amendment rights, they argued.

The Environmental Protection Agency, another defendant named in the case, is reportedly working toward a settlement with UC faculty attorneys to avoid further litigation.

Separately, a federal district judge in Massachusetts dealt the Trump administration a significant setback last week regarding its authority to cancel grants and withhold federal funding. The administration had leaned on a common legal justification for many of its funding cuts — that a grant “no longer effectuates agency priorities.” California and 22 other states sued, arguing there is no legal basis for the federal government to cancel already-awarded funding simply because the White House later decides it wants different program priorities. The judge agreed with the states.

Original source: CalMatters

The post White House Admits to Using Keywords to Cancel Major California Research Grants appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A 181-page report prepared by researchers organized through the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research examines what California would need to decide before moving to a universal health care model financed through a unified system. Such a system could combine state and federal health care dollars with money now spent by employers and residents, and potentially require new taxes.

During a webinar Wednesday, the research team summarized its findings and responded to questions. On many of the most important details, however, the answer remained uncertain. The report does not prescribe one specific plan. Instead, it lays out the choices policymakers would face if they attempt to redesign how health care is paid for in California.

One of the biggest decisions would be whether the state should pursue a true single-payer model, in which California finances health care for all residents, or a more limited hybrid approach that preserves parts of the existing insurance system. Single-payer supporters often point to systems in the United Kingdom and parts of Western Europe as examples, though California’s health care landscape is far more fragmented.

State leaders would also have to decide whether California would continue paying the existing network of private and public health care providers or create a new state-run structure. Other questions include whether doctors and hospitals would be paid for each service they provide, or whether the state would keep some version of managed care, which now dominates both private insurance and public programs.

Federal funding would be another major hurdle. Medicare, Medi-Cal and other federal programs currently account for roughly half of health care spending in California. Any unified financing plan would likely depend on the federal government agreeing to redirect tens of billions of dollars to the state. The report also raises the issue of how such a system would treat undocumented immigrants, who are generally barred from federally financed health benefits.

The UC report suggests that a single-payer system could offer the greatest administrative efficiency by reducing billing complexity, paperwork and other costs associated with today’s mix of insurers and public programs. But researchers also noted that the same approach would likely be the most politically difficult to achieve.

For many progressives in California and across the country, single-payer health care has been a long-sought goal. Gov. Gavin Newsom embraced the idea during his 2018 campaign, saying at the time that he was tired of politicians claiming to support single-payer while arguing that it was too soon, too costly or someone else’s responsibility.

After taking office, Newsom shifted toward a more incremental strategy. He later described single-payer as an “aspirational” goal rather than a firm commitment, while his administration focused on expanding coverage through Medi-Cal and other programs.

Newsom did sign legislation in 2019 creating the Healthy California for All Commission to study the issue. At the time, he said the state needed input from experts in both the public and private sectors as California continued moving toward universal coverage.

The commission’s 2022 report supported the concept of unified financing but stopped short of calling specifically for a single-payer system. That work helped lead to the 2023 passage of Senate Bill 770, which directed further study by the University of California. The UC report, released in April, is the result of that effort.

In many ways, the report brings the debate back to where it began. When Newsom first promoted single-payer during his campaign, health policy experts already warned that transforming California’s enormous and costly health care system would be complicated. The new report reinforces that conclusion in extensive detail.

With Newsom nearing the end of his time as governor and widely viewed as a possible future presidential candidate, the question now is whether California’s pursuit of a unified health care financing system will continue — or remain largely an exercise in policy planning.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Single-Payer Health Care Could Work in California, but Fiscal and Political Hurdles Loom appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Jason Williams, a Marine Corps veteran and UCLA chemistry doctoral candidate, and Angel Fulgencio, who works in domestic violence intervention, say programs that help former service members move from military life into higher education are increasingly vulnerable. Both participated in UCLA’s Veterans in STEM program, which connects student veterans with research training, faculty mentors and hands-on lab experience.

The transition from active duty to a college campus can be difficult, they said. Many veterans are older than traditional college students, carry different life experiences and may be dealing with combat-related trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder. Some also face financial instability, interrupted schooling or homelessness before reaching a classroom.

Those challenges make campus-based support programs especially important, Williams and Fulgencio argue. UCLA’s Veterans in STEM program, housed within the university’s Center for Developing Leadership in Science, helps veterans build research experience needed for jobs, graduate school and long-term careers in science and health fields.

Participants attend weekly training sessions, work in laboratories with faculty and mentors, and may take part in intensive summer research opportunities. Some later mentor other veterans entering the program.

But the program’s future became uncertain after federal officials froze millions of dollars in grant funding to UCLA, affecting research programs across the university. According to the veterans, the uncertainty forced a pause in admissions last spring, and students who completed the initial training were unable to move forward to the next stage.

The situation has drawn attention to Senate Bill 895, the California Science and Health Research Bond Act. The bipartisan proposal, sponsored by the University of California, would ask voters to approve $12 billion in funding for research grants, loans and facilities tied to medicine, science jobs and health-related innovation.

Supporters say the bond could help California maintain research programs and protect training opportunities while federal funding disputes continue. For student veterans, Williams and Fulgencio said, that could mean preserving access to programs that help turn military experience into academic and professional advancement.

Federal officials have described some university research cuts as an effort to eliminate “woke programs,” but the veterans say the impact reaches people who served the country and are now trying to build civilian careers. Although the National Science Foundation grant supporting the program has been reinstated for now, the broader legal fight remains unresolved.

Williams and Fulgencio argue that veterans strengthen higher education because they bring practical, real-world experience and different perspectives to research. Reducing support for those students, they said, ultimately weakens universities and undermines the nation’s broader interest in scientific progress.

California lawmakers would need to place SB 895 on the November ballot before voters could decide whether to approve the bond. For veterans pursuing higher education, supporters say the measure represents a chance for the state to reinforce both its commitment to former service members and its investment in research that benefits Californians.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Veterans’ Higher Ed Funding at Risk as $12 Billion Bond Proposal Offers Hope appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The UCLA Fetal Echo Symposium is a pivotal event that focuses on enhancing sonographers’ skills in detecting congenital fetal heart disease. This year’s conference featured a comprehensive curriculum designed for both low-risk and high-risk pregnancies, emphasizing the latest clinical techniques and innovations in fetal cardiac imaging.

Attendees engaged with world-class experts through didactic lectures, round-table discussions, and interactive sessions, including a live-scanning tutorial. Highlights also included personal testimonials from young patients who have overcome significant cardiac challenges, bringing a powerful, human element to the proceedings.

Tracy Francis, Director/Instructor of the Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program, expressed her gratitude for the experience: “One of the most enjoyable parts of the conference is when they bring up the children to share their experiences and how they are thriving. Many have faced major cardiac issues and have undergone multiple open-heart surgeries before the age of five! A big thank you to the MSJC Foundation for allowing our students to participate in this great event. They had a fantastic day and learned invaluable skills to implement in their future careers.”

MSJC is committed to providing students with opportunities that foster professional growth and excellence in the field. The knowledge the DMS students gained at the UCLA Fetal Echo Symposium will enhance their preparation for successful careers in diagnostic medical sonography.

About the DMS Program The Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program at MSJC is dedicated to training the next generation of skilled medical imaging professionals. Our curriculum combines theoretical knowledge with hands-on experience, preparing students for successful careers in the healthcare field.

About UCLA Fetal Echocardiography Symposium

The UCLA Fetal Echocardiography Symposium is an annual event that brings together experts in fetal cardiac imaging to share insights, techniques, and advancements in the field. With a focus on both education and patient experience, the symposium aims to improve outcomes for families affected by congenital heart disease.

About Mt. San Jacinto College

Mt. San Jacinto College (MSJC) is a comprehensive community college serving a 1,700-square-mile area from the San Gorgonio Pass to Temecula, with campuses in San Jacinto, Menifee Valley, Temecula Valley, and San Gorgonio Pass. MSJC offers courses and programs that satisfy the transfer requirements of four-year colleges and universities.

The post DMS Program Students Attend 14th Annual UCLA Fetal Echocardiography Symposium appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Others waved Palestinian flags, shouting “free Palestine,” and pressed union demands that the University of California divest from ties to Israel and the war in Gaza and grant all protesters amnesty from campus discipline.

The merger of union charges of workplace mistreatment with the goals of a wider pro-Palestinian campus movement has not only injected new fuel into antiwar activism, but has also become a challenging and potentially volatile labor dispute at three of the most prominent public universities in the nation.

The unique demands of United Auto Workers Local 4811 have labor experts debating over how the widely-watched strike — which has canceled some classes, blocked parking lots and prompted protests that disrupted classes — could come to an end while probably setting lasting precedents.

While unions typically strike over pay demands or benefit improvements during contract negotiations, this walkout is far different. The union charges that its rights have been violated. The university accuses union members of manipulating labor law to support political goals unrelated to everyday work and says it is breaking a no-strike agreement in its contract.

The escalating situation — union leaders say they are prepared to strike at possibly three more campuses next week — could have a lasting impact on how one of the country’s largest university systems deals with one of the biggest higher education unions.

That’s one reason why UC leaders said they are asking the state labor authority — the Public Employee Relations Board, or PERB — to order the union to halt its strike during a critical ending period of the term with finals and grading at hand.

“If what UAW has put together creates a precedent and a framework that PERB says is allowable, that will change all of our understanding about negotiations and what the framework looks like for labor,” said Missy Matella, UC’s associate vice president for systemwide labor relations. “Because if, for example, this is allowed, and if PERB says this is a lawful strike, then the University of California, the state of California, all of the public employers in the state of California will need to understand that labor peace is not guaranteed during contracts, even with a no-strike agreement.”

What led to the strike

The 48,000-member union includes graduate teaching assistants, researchers and other academic workers at UC’s 10 campuses and the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory who lead discussion groups, grade papers and administer exams, among other responsibilities.

They walked off the job alleging that their free speech rights to speak out about their workplaces were violated when UC leaders called in police to remove pro-Palestinian encampments at several campuses, resulting in arrests and suspensions. They also contend the university violated their rights as workers by failing to protect them when a violent mob attacked protesters at UCLA, including union members, and police took hours to intervene.

The union bases the charges on the experiences of dozens of members who protested at UCLA, UC San Diego and UC Irvine. The union also says universities unilaterally changed their job conditions when classes were moved online amid protests instead of bargaining over those work-related decisions.

The UAW filed unfair labor practice charges with the state labor board May 10.

On May 15, 79% of the 19,780 members who cast ballots voted to authorize the strike. The total voter participation amounted to 41% of all union members — meaning 33% of the total membership approved the authorization. The rates were significantly lower than a 2022 strike vote, in which 76% of members voted and 97% approved of a strike that led to increases in wages and benefits.

“It was always likely that the strike vote and participation would be lower than in the 2022,” said John Logan, a professor in the department of labor and employment studies at San Francisco State University. “These things do matter, but it’s arguably a respectable turnout and maybe even a higher than expected strike authorization, given that it’s… not a strike over pay and benefits.”

The university contends that the current strike is illegal because the union has a valid contract with a no-strike clause. Last week, the state labor board denied UC’s request to halt the strike on grounds that it was causing irreparable harm to students, research andoperations.

The university doubled down on its injunction request Wednesday, filing evidence citing the spread of strikes this week to UCLA and UC Davis and arguing that union members have disrupted classes and access to campuses. The strikes, it said, were “to the detriment of tens of thousands of students, faculty and other campus community members.”

In a response filed Thursday evening, the union said “the university has failed yet again” to prove its point and that its allegations are “speculative” and “unsubstantiated.” In some cases, the UAW put the blame for campus disruptions and blockages on pro-Palestinian undergraduates or other nonunion groups.

Union leaders also say the no-strike provision is irrelevant to the alleged violations they are claiming.

The state board is expected to again decide on the matter soon.

“We are urging the university to come to an agreement as soon as possible so we can resume teaching courses and research,” Jaime said.

Matella said in an interview that strikes were the wrong way to go.

“We have many arbitrations pending with UAW right now. So they absolutely have other mechanisms for resolving this conflict,” said Matella. “They’ve just chosen not to use them.”

Other academic worker unions, including those at USC, Harvard and New York University, have also filed unfair labor practice charges against their employers related to worker treatment during pro-Palestinian protests.

Union demands

The union is launching campus strikes one by one and has threatened to call on members on all campuses to strike through June 30.

Some of the union’s demands, such as amnesty from discipline for all people who took part in protests — union members or not — are relatively straightforward.

Others, including a demand that the University of California divest billions of dollars from “weapons manufacturers, military contractors, and companies profiting from Israel’s war on Gaza” are harder because UC leaders have declared opposition to divestment that targets Israel. Individual campuses have been more favorable to the demands — to a degree.

In an agreement with protesters to end their encampment at UC Berkeley, outgoing Chancellor Carol Christ said she supported examining Berkeley’s investments in “a targeted list of companies due to their participation in weapons manufacturing, mass incarceration, and/or surveillance industries” and would push University of California regents on divestment.

In a similar pact at UC Riverside, Chancellor Kim Wilcox said he would form a task force to “explore the removal of UCR’s endowment from the management of the UC Investments Office, and the investment of said endowment in a manner that will be financially and ethically sound for the university with consideration to the companies involved in arms manufacturing and delivery.”

Another union demand is for the researchers it represents to receive transitional funding so they can opt out from “funding sources tied to the military or oppression of Palestinians.” That would include those working for departments that were given portions of the $333 million the University of California received last year from the Department of Defense.

Legal debate

The strike reflects a growing national labor movement in which younger, liberal workers are increasingly unionizing and taking political stands, said David Lewin, a professor emeritus of management, human resources and organizational behavior at the UCLA Anderson School of Management.

Unions have long played a role in elections and even supported foreign policy positions, Lewin said, “but this is different.”

“Striking workers are taking a risk in supporting one side of a two-party conflict. It looks opportunistic because you have employees of the university striking at the end of a quarter or semester when final exams are being given, grades are due and people have to graduate. It puts a lot of pressure on the university.”

Time is running out for a resolution, Lewin said, because “as soon as most students are gone for the summer, the union’s leverage significantly decreases.”

He thinks the university’s claim that the strike is illegal is “stronger” than the union’s argument over free speech violations because “there are a lot of interpretations of what free speech means,” including protest rights that UC currently affords students and workers who continue to rally in support of Palestinians.

Some other labor experts take a different view.

The university’s messaging “is meant to intimidate the workers into not going on strike,” said Tobias Higbie, a UCLA professor of history and labor studies. “I wish the University of California would be a different type of employer, but apparently it’s not the way they want to go with this.”

Noah D. Zatz, a UCLA professor of law and labor studies, said union members were within their rights to stop working. Unfair labor practice strikes have precedent, he said, and go beyond “seemingly all-inclusive” no-strike clauses in contracts. That’s because because they rest on a union’s allegations that the employer violated labor law — in this case, California’s Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act — and not simply contract terms, he said.

UC “expresses incredulity that this has anything to do with employment and work. That’s strange considering the university is a massive employer,” Zatz said. “You have people who are employees engaging in protest activity on employer’s grounds suffering at the hands of their employer. The idea that this has nothing to do with employer relationships is very hard to take.”

What workers say

That’s the position workers promoted this week during pickets at UCLA.

Speaking at a rally, union member Yunyi Li called for “no business as usual” until UC leaders face up to alleged “unlawful actions.”

“UC can be on the right side of history by taking accountability for their actions by coming to an agreement with encampment organizers over amnesty, divestment and policing,” Li said to a crowd of hundreds gathered near the Bruin Bear statue. “We are all here because no worker or student should be forcefully expelled from their workplace or their school for peaceful protest, especially in the fight for something as righteous and as fundamental as a free Palestine.”

At UC Irvine, where no strike has been called, union member Mark Gradoni said he supported the members rallying elsewhere. Gradoni, a doctoral student in the history department, was arrested May 15 when police broke up a pro-Palestinian building occupation and encampment in Irvine.

On May 21, the university notified Gradoni of his interim suspension for violating campus policies on disruption and disorderly or lewd conduct, among others. A letter banned Gradoni from campus, in housing, or where any university programming is taking place and directed him to teach remotely.

“It’s pretty clear that the university feels threatened by students, faculty and workers asking for greater transparency and a greater stake in shaping our terms of employment and the way our university works,” Gradoni said.

Is there a way out?

Jaime, the union president, said all of the union’s demands were important but singled out one that he said would “do a lot to lower the pressure.”

“They could start by dropping the charges against workers — police and discipline charges,” he said. “Both completely have the potential to derail people’s lives.”

On divestment, Jaime pointed to deals struck at UC Berkeley and UC Riverside as “models” but said it was “too early to tell” what the results in those cases would be.

Amnesty from discipline, such as suspensions, has been promised to protesters at several universities across the U.S. as a condition of taking down pro-Palestinian encampments.

Mediation between UC and the UAW is ongoing, part of a multi-step process that could drag far beyond the end of this quarter, which is mid-June at several campuses.

UC has also filed its own unfair labor practice charge against the union, saying it violated its contract by striking.

Last week, the labor board issued a complaint against the union based on those allegations. The complaint sets in motion a process under which both sides will make their case. The complaint indicates the labor board’s view that, if the facts presented by UC are shown to be accurate, then the strike could be ruled illegal. The case is slow-moving — both sides have until mid-June to submit paperwork — and does not itself halt the strike.

The post UC strike also rears up as pro-Palestinian protests. That’s why the endgame is so tricky appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Kevin Smith | San Gabriel Valley Tribune

Students at UCLA and UC Riverside are demanding their schools cut ties with Starbucks until the coffee chain ends an alleged union-busting campaign against its baristas. In a show of solidarity, the students plan to deliver petitions with more than 1,500 signatures to the two universities this week.

“The issues of Starbucks workers and the experiences that students face are intersectional, and we must be in solidarity,” said David Ramirez, a UCLA student, former Starbucks worker and member of UCLA Students Against Starbucks. Starbucks spokesman Andrew Trull addressed union concerns in a statement released Monday, Jan. 29.

“As a company, we respect our partners’ right to organize, freely associate, engage in lawful union activities and bargain collectively without fear of reprisal or retaliation — and remain committed to our stated aim of reaching ratified contracts for union-represented stores in 2024,” he said. The move to organize has grown rapidly in recent years with workers at more than 385 Starbucks stores unionizing with Starbucks Workers United as they lobby for higher wages, increased staffing and consistent scheduling, despite heavy pushback from the coffee chain.

Locally, that includes locations in Long Beach, Los Angeles, Anaheim and Huntington Beach. The push for higher pay and better working conditions has resulted in the unionization of more than 9,500 Starbucks employees, according to the Starbucks Workers United website. The UCLA petition, which will be delivered Tuesday, Jan. 30 to the board of directors for Associated Students UCLA, demands that the school divest from Starbucks and terminate its licensing agreement with the company. The UC Riverside petition, to be delivered the following day to Chancellor Kim A. Wilcox and top decision-makers at the university, will likewise demand that the university not renew its contract with the coffee chain.

Speakers at both actions will highlight the employees’ bargaining demands and share stories about what unions mean to the next generation of workers, many of whom will be college students. “When we graduate, we want to enter a workforce where workers have a real voice on the job with their employers,” said Eren Whitfield, a UCR Student and member of UCR Students Against Starbucks. “Bringing people together for a common purpose has been our main goal.” Workers at a Starbucks at 5757 Wilshire Blvd. in Los Angeles voted to unionize earlier this month, marking the 33rd California location to join Starbucks Workers United.

The National Labor Relations Board must still certify the outcome of their vote. Andrew Gillespie, a shift supervisor at the coffee shop, said management tried to dissuade employees from joining the union. “At first, they said they wanted to let us know that the company was behind us,” the 26-year-old LA resident said. “But then they started posting signs and said our benefits could go away if we unionized. They also said, ‘We can make that raise you’ve been asking for happen if you vote no.’”

The raise management was referring to is an automatic pay hike workers already get each year, Gillespie said. Starbucks disputes that point and said it announced in November that all U.S. employees would receive a minimum of a 3% annual wage increase. Starbucks said it “will give all union-represented partners annual wage increases that are aligned to previous, historical practices for each store” — which may differ based on when workers began to pursue union representation.

“The starting wage for Starbucks employees in California is $17 an hour, but under the contract we drafted, no one would make less than $20 an hour,” Gillespie said. Starbucks’ board of directors recently released the findings of an independent third party assessment on the company’s adherence to its workers’ right to collective bargaining. The evaluation from Thomas M. Mackall, a senior counsel to the U.S. Council on International Business, found “there is no evidence Starbucks has or has used an ‘anti-union playbook,’ and that “the company has provided consistent reassurances to partners that Starbucks respects their right to collectively organize through fairly conducted elections.”

UC Riverside officials said full-time, non-management workers at the Starbucks on campus are university employees and are already represented by a union. “UC Riverside’s contract with Starbucks for its on-campus location expires in summer 2025,” they said. “Renewal conversations have not yet been initiated by the university, nor by Starbucks.” In November, UCLA students introduced a resolution at the student council calling on the university’s administration to kick Starbucks off of campus as a consequence for its “illegal union busting.”

That resulted in administrative law judges finding the company has “broken the law more than 270 times,” union officials said. In May 2023, students at Cornell University successfully demanded their university cut ties with Starbucks after the company closed all three of Ithaca’s stores – all of which had formed unions. By August 2023, the students won a victory when Cornell said it wouldn’t renew its existing contract with Starbucks when it expires in 2025.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post UCLA, UC Riverside students petition to remove Starbucks from campuses appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.