After appearing all but finished earlier this year, a $7.5 billion science research bond measure has been revived through a last-minute agreement between state lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom. The proposal, Senate Bill 895, is authored by San Francisco Democrat Sen. Scott Wiener and cleared the Legislature Monday with broad bipartisan support. It now heads to the governor’s desk for a signature.

The bond’s path to this point has been anything but smooth. It began life more than a year ago as an ambitious $23 billion request, was later trimmed to $12 billion, and appeared headed nowhere after missing a June deadline to qualify for this year’s ballot — at one point shrinking to just $5 billion. Wiener, along with an unusual alliance of the University of California system and the union representing graduate student researchers, kept pushing to keep the effort alive over the summer.

That persistence has paid off. For the first time, leadership in both the Assembly and Senate, along with Newsom, are united behind the measure, which underwent significant last-minute changes.

“We have performed a ritual legislative resurrection of the bill,” Wiener said during a Friday press conference announcing the deal.

Under the proposal, $1 billion would go toward building new science facilities at UC and Cal State campuses and establishing a system of scientific review panels to evaluate research proposals on their merits. The remainder would fund a broad spectrum of priorities, including biomedical research, wildfire prevention and water supply projects. Some money would also support efforts to commercialize scientific breakthroughs and create opportunities for researchers early in their careers.

Bonds function as a form of government debt, repaid gradually over time. Under this measure, public and private research institutions — universities, medical centers, labs and other organizations — would be eligible to apply for grants or loans. A newly created California Foundation for Science and Health Research Council would be tasked with developing detailed guidelines for how the money gets distributed.

Supporters frame the bond as a defense mechanism against the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to slash research funding at UC campuses and elsewhere. The Department of Justice has argued in court that some federal grants it canceled ran afoul of the president’s restrictions on research tied to diversity initiatives and climate change — even though many of the affected projects focused on disease research, including work on cancer, dementia and new pharmaceutical treatments.

Federal money makes up roughly half of all research funding across the UC system — about $3 billion in federal grants during the 2024-25 fiscal year alone. Last year, the White House suspended or canceled more than 1,000 California science grants funded through the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation. Court filings later revealed the administration used bulk keyword searches for terms associated with diversity and climate topics to identify grants for elimination. Most of those grants have since been restored, at least temporarily, following lawsuits filed by university researchers — though at least one major legal challenge remains unresolved.

The administration has also floated a plan to let political appointees decide which science grants receive funding, a break from the long-standing practice of using independent peer-review panels of scientists to make those calls.

That shift, along with broader anxiety about federal interference in research, has already prompted some prominent American scientists to relocate abroad, drawn by new incentive packages from other countries. Dr. Harold R. Collard, vice chancellor for research at UC San Francisco, said during Friday’s announcement that California’s bond measure could help retain researchers who might otherwise leave — and attract new talent to the state. Economic research suggests every dollar spent through NIH grants generates roughly $2.57 in broader economic activity.

The bond’s rocky road through the Legislature appears to have stemmed largely from timing concerns. Lawmakers and political observers say the measure initially stalled in the Assembly amid worries it would compete for voter attention — and campaign resources — with a separate, higher-priority bond: an $11.25 billion housing measure set for the November ballot aimed at expanding affordable housing construction statewide. Advocates for that measure worried a second large bond on the same ballot could hurt both efforts.

“I think there’s some legitimate political concerns about placing something competing with the housing bond,” said Chris Micheli, a longtime Sacramento lobbyist and law professor, when the science bond first hit a wall in June.

Wiener confirmed that was indeed part of the calculation. “We already placed a housing bond on the ballot,” he said Friday. “There are a lot of items on the state ballot, and I understand why some people were concerned about placing yet additional items on the ballot for November. That’s why we were able to, after the deadline passed, work collaboratively toward March of 2028.”

The housing bond has faced its own version of this dance before — it was bumped in 2024 to make way for two other $10 billion bond measures covering school construction and climate resilience.

Complicating matters further, California voters will actually see a different science-related bond measure this November. Proposition 38, backed by a wealthy private funder, would direct $8.4 billion toward immunology and immunotherapy research, with particular focus on Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart disease. According to CalMatters reporting, roughly half of that funding appears likely to benefit a single research institute closely tied to the measure’s billionaire backer.

Wiener doesn’t see that measure as competition for his own bond effort, given the different scope and timeline. “That ballot measure primarily funds one particular institute. It’s not a broad science policy funding measure, and so it’s just very different,” he said.

Now the real work begins: persuading California voters, more than two years from now, that investing billions more in scientific research is worth the cost.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California May Ask Voters in 2028 to Restore Science Funding Cut by Trump 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.

Attorneys representing the affected UC researchers say the admission amounts to hard evidence that nearly $2 billion in canceled grants were pulled illegally. The disclosure marks a significant turn in an ongoing lawsuit, Thakur v. Trump, in which UC scientists are suing the administration to have their funding permanently reinstated. Their legal team is now urging the presiding judge to bypass a full trial and rule outright that the White House violated the Constitution — including the First Amendment — in how it targeted the grants. A hearing on that request is set for Oct. 20.

The keyword admission surfaced in signed stipulations filed last week in federal court, part of a case that has been working through the system since last spring. According to those filings, the agencies acknowledged they did not terminate grants because of any specific violation of grant terms. Instead, they applied broad screening criteria rather than evaluating each award individually for compliance or performance, according to the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Lawyers for the UC professors argue the admission points to three separate constitutional violations. First, by using keyword sweeps to mass-terminate grants instead of reviewing them case by case, the administration effectively targeted research based on its political content — a First Amendment issue. Second, the Department of Energy canceled 283 grants overwhelmingly concentrated in states that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024, while leaving similar grants in Republican-leaning states untouched, which the attorneys say improperly punished researchers based on where they live. Third, by canceling billions in awarded funding without redirecting it to other approved research purposes, the administration allegedly failed to spend money the way Congress had legally mandated.

CalMatters reached out to the U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the federal agencies in court, asking whether officials agree that the stipulations reflect constitutional violations. As of publication, the department had not responded.

**A case with a history of setbacks for the administration**

U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin, who is overseeing the case, has repeatedly ruled in favor of the UC researchers, issuing a series of preliminary injunctions ordering federal agencies to restore grants while the broader legal questions are resolved. That includes hundreds of grants at UCLA that the administration had tried to suspend over accusations that the university failed to adequately address antisemitism and allowed transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports.

Those same allegations were central to a separate demand from the White House that UCLA pay $1.2 billion or face further funding freezes. But months before that ultimatum, UCLA had already taken steps to respond to concerns about campus antisemitism, including forming a task force focused on improving conditions for Jewish students.

Lin, appointed by President Biden, criticized the administration for ignoring those efforts when she issued an injunction in a related case, noting that the government’s justification for pulling the grants failed to even mention the corrective steps UCLA had already taken.

Now, attorneys for the professors in the Thakur case are asking Lin to issue a final ruling — not just another temporary injunction — ordering the grants restored. Even if she does, the federal government could still appeal to a higher court.

The researchers’ legal team describes the stakes as severe. If the funding freeze is allowed to stand, they argue, scientists, graduate students and support staff who built their careers around this research will suffer lasting professional and reputational harm. They also warn of broader consequences: potential medical breakthroughs that never happen, diseases that go unstudied, and a decline in the United States’ global leadership in publicly funded research.

**How the keyword system worked**

A CalMatters review of the new court filings shows the agencies used keyword-based screening in several different ways.

The Department of Transportation, for example, identified six grants worth roughly $42 million for termination because the projects referenced “transportation equity,” focused on “disadvantaged communities,” or aimed at “diversifying the transportation workforce.” Three of those grants were led by a UC Davis researcher, and their cancellation forced 77 researchers to abandon 79 ongoing projects. According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, the affected 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 acknowledged using an internal search tool to flag UC grants containing terms such as “health equity,” “workforce diversity,” “structural racism” and “sexual orientation.” The agency alone suspended or terminated more than 1,000 UC grants — including nearly 700 at UCLA — covering vaccine research, cancer studies and work on health disparities. That total is newly revealed in court records; UCLA had previously estimated closer to 500 canceled NIH grants. The agency also acknowledged that DOGE, the short-lived federal cost-cutting office once led by Elon Musk, may have used artificial intelligence tools to help identify grants for elimination.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue these disclosures show a clear pattern: the agencies identified viewpoints they wanted to suppress, searched their own grant databases for language reflecting those viewpoints, and terminated the funding accordingly — a direct violation of researchers’ First Amendment rights, they contend.

The Environmental Protection Agency, also named in the lawsuit, is reportedly working toward a settlement with the plaintiffs’ legal team to avoid further courtroom battles.

Meanwhile, a federal judge in Massachusetts dealt a separate setback to the administration last week in a related legal fight over funding cancellations. That case centered on a phrase the administration used repeatedly to justify pulling federal dollars — that funding no longer “effectuates agency priorities.” California, joined by 22 other states, argued there is no legal basis for canceling already-awarded federal funding simply because the White House’s goals had shifted. The judge agreed, siding with the states.

Original source: CalMatters

The post White House Acknowledges Using Keyword Searches to Cancel Billions in California Research Grants appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The confusion comes at a time when a growing chorus of faculty members and media commentators are pushing the UC system to bring back the SAT as part of its admissions process. The Board of Regents eliminated the testing requirement in 2020, overruling a recommendation from the UC Academic Senate that the university continue relying on the SAT and ACT. That vote was unanimous.

The latest wrinkle emerged last month, when the Academic Senate announced it would launch a review of standardized admissions tests along with the high school coursework students must complete to meet minimum UC eligibility requirements. Then, on Monday afternoon, several news outlets reported that a Senate committee overseeing admissions had decided to scrap that review altogether.

But two senior UC officials say a fresh look at the role of standardized testing in admissions remains very much on the table. One of them is Ahmet Palazoglu, chair of the Academic Senate.

“The Academic Senate is not walking back its commitment to conducting a comprehensive review of standardized testing in the admissions process,” Palazoglu wrote in a statement posted Monday night on the UC Office of the President’s website. He said the Senate is simply adjusting its original timeline for completing the broader admissions review.

At a Board of Regents meeting Tuesday, the board’s new chair, Maria Anguiano, said the Academic Senate will wrap up its review “no later than the end of this academic year” — meaning around June 2027.

That actually moves the timeline up. A Senate document released last month had indicated the panel’s final report and recommendation to the board would come sometime in fall 2027.

Palazoglu clarified in an email Tuesday that the June deadline applies specifically to the standardized testing question. The Academic Senate is scheduled to meet July 22 to determine a separate approach for reviewing the high school coursework requirements students must satisfy to be eligible for UC admission.

While the Academic Senate wields considerable influence within the UC system, it cannot unilaterally reinstate the SAT for undergraduate admissions. Only the Board of Regents has that authority. Under standard procedure, the board must first hear at least one informational item on the topic before voting on any policy change at a later meeting.

Students push back against SAT’s return

The University of California Student Association sent a letter to the Board of Regents this week opposing any reinstatement of the SAT. The association, which represents roughly 237,000 UC undergraduates, said it does not believe bringing back the SAT or ACT would lead to better-prepared students. The letter pointed out that racial and ethnic diversity across the UC system has grown since 2020, even as graduation rates have held steady or improved.

“The purpose of public education is to ensure that all students can access their right to a strong, quality learning experience, and UC should not be limiting the number of students who can enter its classrooms,” the students wrote.

Back in 2020, students were among those urging the Board of Regents to drop standardized testing from admissions. The board reaffirmed its ban on admissions testing in 2021.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Anguiano signaled some unease with how much attention the testing debate has commanded. “In my view, recent public conversations have focused too heavily on admissions and standardized testing,” she said.

Why some faculty want the SAT back

More than 2,000 UC faculty members in science, technology, engineering and math fields have signed a petition calling on the university to reinstate the SAT or ACT as an admissions requirement for STEM majors starting in fall 2027. Nearly 1,000 additional faculty members from other disciplines signed a separate letter calling for the full restoration of standardized testing across all admissions.

The STEM faculty petition argues that high school grades alone are not a reliable measure of college readiness, pointing to rising grade inflation and growing numbers of students relying on artificial intelligence to complete coursework. As a result, some students arrive at UC unprepared for the rigor of its academic programs, the petition contends.

Mina Aganagic, a physics and mathematics professor at UC Berkeley, spoke in favor of bringing back the SAT during Tuesday’s meeting. “Without the SAT, our introductory courses are forced to re-teach material from elementary and middle school. That wastes opportunity and misallocates resources instead of expanding access to higher education,” she said.

But the head of an influential nonprofit that advocates for greater access to the UC system said focusing on the SAT is the wrong approach.

“This is absolutely the wrong solution for an undefined problem,” said Jessie Ryan, president of the Campaign for College Opportunity. “Based on the UC Office of the President’s own research, we know that since the testing requirement was dropped, our retention rates have remained stable and graduation rates have actually gone up.”

She added: “If we truly want to address college readiness, the answer isn’t to become more selective — it’s to provide more support to students throughout the state. We need to work with our K-12 partners to improve preparation, rather than shutting the door on thousands of students.”

Critics of the SAT have long argued the test disadvantages low-income students, who are less likely to afford test-prep services that can boost scores.

Standardized tests were historically just one piece of the puzzle UC campuses used to evaluate applicants. Other factors considered include the rigor of a student’s course load, how that course load compares with peers at the same high school, special talents or achievements, and the location of the applicant’s school.

Original source: CalMatters

The post University of California to Conduct New Review of SAT Exam in June 2027 appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The clarification comes amid mounting pressure from faculty members and commentators who want the UC to bring back standardized testing requirements that the Board of Regents eliminated in 2020. That decision, approved unanimously by the regents, went against a recommendation from the UC Academic Senate, which had favored keeping the SAT and ACT as part of the admissions process at the time.

Confusion over the university’s plans surfaced last month after the Academic Senate announced it would review both standardized testing and the high school coursework requirements used to determine UC eligibility. Then, on Monday, several media outlets reported that a senate committee overseeing admissions policy had abandoned that review altogether.

UC officials pushed back on that characterization. Ahmet Palazoglu, chair of the Academic Senate, issued a statement Monday night through the UC Office of the President insisting the review remains active.

“The Academic Senate is not rescinding its commitment to a comprehensive review of standardized testing in admissions,” Palazoglu wrote, adding that the faculty body is simply adjusting its original schedule for completing the broader admissions study.

At a Board of Regents meeting Tuesday, newly appointed board chair Maria Anguiano said the Academic Senate now intends to wrap up its testing review by the end of the current academic year — around June 2027. That’s earlier than the fall 2027 target laid out in a senate document circulated last month.

Palazoglu later clarified in an email that the accelerated June deadline applies specifically to the standardized testing question. A separate discussion about how to review high school course requirements for UC eligibility is scheduled for a senate meeting July 22.

Even with a completed review, the Academic Senate cannot single-handedly restore the SAT to UC admissions. That authority rests solely with the Board of Regents, which must first consider an informational presentation before voting on any policy change at a later meeting.

Students renew opposition

The University of California Student Association, which represents roughly 237,000 undergraduates across the system, sent regents a letter this week reiterating its opposition to reviving standardized testing requirements. The organization argued there’s no evidence the SAT or ACT would produce better-prepared students, noting that racial and ethnic diversity on UC campuses grew after the 2020 policy change without any corresponding drop in graduation rates.

“The role of public education is to ensure all students can access their right to a robust, quality learning experience, and the UC must not limit the number of students able to enter its halls,” the students wrote.

This isn’t the first time students have weighed in. It was student advocacy in 2020 that helped convince regents to drop the testing requirement, and the board reaffirmed that stance in 2021.

Anguiano appeared to signal some frustration with how the debate has unfolded publicly. “Recent public conversations have focused on admissions and standardized testing, too narrowly, in my opinion,” she told fellow regents Tuesday.

Faculty push for reinstatement

More than 2,000 UC faculty members in STEM fields have signed a petition calling for the SAT or ACT to become mandatory again for students applying to science, technology, engineering and math programs, with a proposed start date of fall 2027. Separately, nearly 1,000 professors from other academic disciplines signed a letter urging a full return to standardized testing for all applicants.

The STEM faculty petition contends that high school transcripts alone don’t reliably indicate whether a student is ready for college-level coursework, citing grade inflation and the rise of artificial intelligence tools that some students use to complete assignments. Supporters argue this leaves some incoming students unprepared for the academic demands of a UC education.

Mina Aganagic, a physics and mathematics professor at UC Berkeley, told regents Tuesday that dropping the SAT has created real classroom challenges. “Without the SAT, our introductory courses are forced to reteach elementary and middle school material. This wastes opportunities, misallocating resources rather than increasing access,” she said.

But not everyone agrees the SAT is the answer. Jessie Ryan, president of the Campaign for College Opportunity, a nonprofit focused on expanding access to higher education, said reviving the test would address the wrong problem.

“This is absolutely the wrong solution to an undefined problem,” Ryan said. “What we know, based on the UC Office of the President’s own research, is that since going to test-free admissions, our retention rates have remained stable and graduation rates have also increased.”

Ryan argued that if the university wants to improve student preparation, it should focus on strengthening support systems and partnerships with K-12 schools rather than raising barriers to entry. “We should be looking not at becoming more selective, but being more supportive to students across the state,” she said. “Working with our K-12 partners to improve preparation, not slamming the door on thousands of students.”

Opponents of reinstating the SAT have long argued the exam disadvantages low-income students, who often lack access to costly test-preparation resources that can boost scores.

Even when standardized tests were part of UC admissions, they were only one factor among many. Campuses also weighed the rigor of a student’s coursework relative to peers at the same high school, extracurricular achievements and special talents, and the socioeconomic and geographic context of an applicant’s background.

Original source: CalMatters

The post UC to Reassess SAT and ACT Admissions Policy by June 2027 appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

But there is one insight that seems particularly worth considering this week as the forces of technology and commerce are squeezing once vital California like never before.

As governor, Brown urged the University of California Regents to embrace the leading edge of technology as they transformed education — and he used the newspaper industry as a cautionary tale.

Brown recalled “walking through newsrooms of the once powerful California newspaper empires. … There were rows and rows of empty desks,” Miriam Pawel wrote in her book “The Browns of California.”

That was well over a decade ago. If he visited today, Brown wouldn’t even recognize many newsrooms. Some have closed. Others have taken on the grim distinction “ghost newspaper.” Many have experienced wrenching cuts, with more likely on the way.

The work of journalism is more important than ever in a world where democracy is under threat, corruption bubbles in local government and society faces sharp divisions. Yet there are fewer boots on the ground seemingly every week.

This summer is shaping up to be a pivotal moment for what remains of the newspaper industry — and it would not be an exaggeration to call it do-or-die as publishers are pitted against the mighty forces that technology giants have been building for decades.

Here is what is at stake:

AI arrives

Artificial intelligence has long been considered a serious but vague threat to the bread-and-butter of journalism, with news and service stories that a computer might eventually be able to spit out faster and a lot cheaper. Now, we are seeing it in action. Google announced changes in search that offer options from artificial intelligence.

The publishing industry is already raising alarm bells, saying this new approach will summarize journalists’ work without sending users to their websites (meaning news organizations will lose traffic and advertising revenue).

We still don’t know exactly how it will work out. But I did some searching using Google’s Gemini AI search tool, and it definitely offered fewer links to journalism websites and a lot more information that kept me on Google’s platform. News organizations are using words like “carnage” and “catastrophic” to describe the changes, saying they could lose massive numbers of users.

Everyone in the news business is scrambling. Some are making deals with AI firms, essentially seeking payment to have their content used. Others are suing, arguing that these AI results are stealing from them.

One last lifeline?

California is leading the U.S. charge in asking Google and other platforms to pay for the news that is provided. The idea is for publishers to get a cut of the bonanza of ads the tech giants are pulling in. The main proposal is AB 886, which passed the Assembly but is awaiting a Senate vote. Among the things the bill addresses:

• Requires large platforms to pay news outlets for their products
• Set fees from arbitration
• Requires news outfits to spend at least 70% of the money on reporters
• It is similar to news protection laws already on the books in Australia and Canada.

Times Sacramento columnist George Skelton handicaps things this way: “Key lawmakers have agreed to pass something this summer, but haven’t decided what. They’re trying to weave together legislation that would attain a difficult two-thirds legislative vote, be acceptable to the big platforms and gain Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature. The governor has been mum.”

Publishers say the bill would be a lifeline and is long overdue. But Google is pushing back hard. Last month, it announced the search engine would reduce access to some California news websites. This week, Google also “warned” nonprofit newsrooms that the passage of legislation in California would threaten funding it has provided them.

It’s still uncertain where this will end, but there is no question this is a critical moment for the news business — in California and beyond.

Newspapers are getting smaller. The revenue needed to cover the state is dwindling. The debate about who should pay for news is more unresolved than ever.

And in an industry always drenched in (and sometimes blinded by) nostalgia, it must be pointed out that determining who pays for the news was once much simpler. In “Man of Tomorrow,” another great book about Jerry Brown, Jim Newton describes Brown early in his unconventional political career.

“He would spot a newspaper on a colleague’s desk and walk away with it without thinking to ask.”

If you value journalism and a free press, you can’t just walk away now.

The post The fate of California newspapers could be sealed in coming months. Do ‘carnage’ and ‘catastrophe’ await? 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.

Michael Sainato

The largest union of academic workers, which represents more than 48,000 graduate student workers throughout the University of California system, will hold a strike authorization vote as early as next week in response to how universities have cracked down on students’ Gaza protests.

“The use and sanction of violent force to curtail peaceful protest is an attack on free speech and the right to demand change, and the university must sit down with students, unions, and campus organizations to negotiate, rather than escalate,” stated an announcement of the strike vote from UAW Local 4811. Earlier this year, the union voted by a margin of more than 9 to 1 in favor of supporting a ceasefire, according to the announcement.

The graduate workers last went on strike in November 2022 over a new union contract, which was the largest strike in US higher education history. They recently merged two UAW locals, 2865 and 5810, under the single UAW Local 4811.

“We have been calling on the University of California to de-escalate and negotiate with the protesters over their very urgent and moral concerns and it failed to do that and it failed to protect students and workers and allowed this violence to occur,” Rafael Jaime, co-president of UAW 4811 and a graduate worker at UCLA, told The Guardian. “We’re holding a strike authorization vote to hold the university accountable and demand the university respect the members’ right to protected speech and right to protest.”

He said the union also plans to file unfair labor practice charges against the University of California over the university’s use of LAPD against protesters and for changing policies unilaterally in response to the protests without bargaining.

“This is the defining issue of our generation and its really important for all, not just workers at the University of California but across the entire nation to speak up and to ensure every worker has the right to speak on this issue,” added Jaime. “We believe all workers, all students have a fundamental right to engage in protests and engage in free speech and universities need to respect that right.”

The United Auto Workers, with 400,000 active members and over 500,000 retirees, is the largest US union to call for a ceasefire in Gaza, which they did in December 2023.

UAW President Shawn Fain recently reaffirmed the union’s position. “Our union has been calling for a ceasefire for six months. This war is wrong and this response against students and academic workers, many of them UAW members, is wrong,” Fain said in a statement on 1 May.

Graduate student workers are also calling on the National Labor Relations Board to weigh in on how universities have been responding to Pro-Palestine protests and whether those responses violate US labor laws and collective bargaining agreements with unions on campus.

The Graduate Labor Organization at Brown University has filed several unfair labor practice charges against the university since March 2024 in regards to Pro-Palestine protests and the university’s responses to them.

Forty-one students at Brown University was arrested and charges remain despite the pro-Palestine encampment dispersing as part of negotiations which included a planned vote by the university’s highest governing body for October 2024 on divesting from companies affiliated with Israel. The charges filed by the union allege Brown University unilaterally changed protest policies without bargaining and that made threats of retaliation toward union members for participating in Pro-Palestine campus protests.

“It’s really about the university trying to leverage this fact that as graduate workers we do have student status and kind of using that as a workaround for violating labor law and this has been their playbook on a whole host of issues,” said Michael Ziegler, political director of the Graduate Labor Organization and graduate worker at Brown University. “In the past five years, we’ve had something like 20 protests on the main green and there was never any issue, the university didn’t take these actions. This is new and I think a dangerous attempt by them to clamp down on the rights of speech and protected concerted action.”

UAW Local 872, which represents around 3,000 graduate workers at USC, has recently filed an unfair labor practice charge against the university over arrests of at least five union members. The union has called for charges to be dropped against all 93 protesters who were arrested on 24 April and for the university to concede to demands from USC Divest from Death Coalition.

“USC’s summoning of LAPD riot police to arrest their own students and workers for peacefully demonstrating is abhorrent and wrong,” said Maile McCann, a Local 872 member and PhD Candidate in the Civil Engineering department at USC, in a statement on the charge. “The administration’s actions show an alarming disregard for our right as students and union members to engage in peaceful demonstrations, and their decisions have put international students in particular at serious risk. USC’s unnecessary escalation has resulted in a shameful waste of public resources for the purposes of silencing dissent.”

A spokesperson for USC said in an email, “we believe the charge is without merit and intend to defend our position before the National Labor Relations Board.”

Brown University and the University of California system did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A spokesperson for Brown University has previously said in response to the first unfair labor practice charge, “individuals are not absolved from abiding by Brown policies by virtue of union membership.” The University of California system has not yet publicly commented on the planned strike vote by graduate student workers.

The post Union plans strike vote over crackdown on University of California Gaza protests appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

This is true for brain-eating amoeba infections, which are thankfully uncommon but do occur on occasion. The most recent sad instance was a seven-year-old child from Tehama County, California, who died from such an illness on August 7. While swimming in Lake California, a gated community in Northern California, the child apparently picked up an amoebic parasite called Naegleria fowleria. The amoeba’s brain-eating activities landed the child in the emergency department on July 30, when he was transported to the University of California– Davis (UC Davis) Medical Center. His health deteriorated to the point that he required life support. Eventually, he died. The parasite Naegleria fowleri may enter your brain by swimming up your nose. This nasty, filthy parasite lands and begins eating. The resultant brain injury is known as primary amebic meningoencephalitis (PAM). PAM is awful, and I apologize to anybody called Pam. The membranes that wrap around your brain are known as meninges. When you need additional letters to express “brain,” the prefix “encephalo-” is utilized. Inflammation is denoted by the suffix “-itis.” As a result, PAM is basically amoeba-caused widespread brain inflammation.

The problem is that these infections are difficult to detect early on. Amoebas are very tiny and do not communicate. When they enter your brain, they make no noise. You may not have any symptoms for the first one to nine days of the illness. Fever, nausea, vomiting, and a severe headache at the front of your head are all possible symptoms. Of all, even if you have a terrible headache, a brain-eating amoeba is unlikely to be the first thing that comes to mind. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) refers to this as Stage One. So, although other therapies are being used, physicians may not be giving miltefosine, a medication that may really kill the amoeba, or causing hypothermia, which involves decreasing the body temperature to decrease brain swelling. This basically leaves the amoeba in your brain, eating away quietly and inflicting more and more harm.

When something is eating away at your brain, time is clearly brain tissue. And your brain is very essential. Delays in identification and treatment are most likely to blame for the poor survival rates associated with Naegleria fowleri infections. PAM is usually deadly within 18 days after the onset of symptoms. According to research published in the Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, just four individuals out of 145 recorded cases of PAM in the United States survived between 1962 and 2018. In fact, death occurred in half of the cases within five days after the onset of symptoms. Those are awful odds.

Hearing this may urge you to put duct tape over your nose to prevent anything from getting up there. Don’t do that since being able to breathe is essential. Fortunately, unlike pollen or the Covid-19 coronavirus, the amoeba does not float in the air. Instead, the amoeba prefers soil and warmer freshwater, such as that found in lakes, rivers, hot springs, swimming pools, water heaters, and industrial facilities.

Symptoms grow more severe as the illness progresses to the second stage. A stiff neck, convulsions, changed mental state, hallucinations, or coma may all occur. Even if you have more severe symptoms, it may be difficult to determine what is wrong since a disease like this may be readily misdiagnosed as a more frequent issue like bacterial meningitis. Again, “do you believe you have a brain-eating amoeba?” is not a typical question.

Another reason why putting dirt up your nose is a terrible idea. You also don’t want to be submerged in industrial facility water tanks. Neti pots, or any activity in which you pour tap water up your nose, may also be a cause of amebic infections. Swimming in a natural body of water or a badly chlorinated pool may also enable the amoeba to enter your nose.

You may be wondering why there haven’t been more than 145 instances of PAM throughout the years. Swimming in ponds, lakes, and rivers is, after all, a very popular pastime. Most individuals seem to engage in these activities without being infected with Naegleria fowleri. As a result, there must be some combination of circumstances that occur to make some individuals more vulnerable.

There are some times and locations when such an infection is more prone to occur. Doing the Polar Bear Plunge in Alaska, for example, is unlikely to endanger you. Because Naegleria fowleri prefers warmer water, the majority of illnesses have occurred during the summer in the 15 southernmost states of the United States. According to the CDC, more than half of the cases have occurred in Texas and Florida. You may decrease your risk of infection by holding or plugging your nose when swimming, particularly while diving, when water is more likely to flow up your nose. Of course, you should not use dirt to obstruct your nose, since this would undermine the objective.

The presence of Naegleria fowleri in any condition is undesirable. A sighting in Northern California is a particularly terrible omen. Infections have lately appeared in additional Northern states, according to a study in the Journal of Infectious Disease. Climate change is one potential explanation. Yes, climate change seems to be warming things up, which may enable the Naegleria fowleri to spread its range farther.

Who would have guessed that turning the Earth into a massive hot pocket by spewing pollutants into the atmosphere would have such a wide range of consequences? Perhaps you can add a brain-eating amoeba to the list of reasons to do more to avoid climate change. That is if you agree that brain-eating is terrible.

Jano le Roux | Contributed

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

The post A deadly Brain-Eating Amoeba has been found in California appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The potential cure Jin discovered is a peptide found in the fruit of greening-tolerant Australian finger limes, which have been consumed by humans for hundreds of years.

Invaio Sciences, Inc., a multi-platform technology company that solves agriculture, nutrition and environmental challenges by unlocking natural systems, has partnered with UCR to advance the peptide research to develop solutions for combating HLB.

During a seminar hosted by Invaio Sciences, experts discussed how they intend to bring this technology to commercialization within three years with the help of their collaborators. The Citrus Research and Development Foundation, Citrus Research Board and Florida Citrus Processors Association are among the collaborators.

Umberto Torresan, senior director of business development at Invaio, says the company is targeting a registered and field-ready solution by early 2023. According to Torresan, the first 200 days will be the most telling on whether this technology will be effective and commercially viable.

Currently, Hamlin and Valencia citrus varieties are planted in the field and being treated with the peptide, and researchers are already seeing promising data. The next step in the process is to receive approval from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A consultation with the EPA is scheduled for later this month. The final step that would need to be completed within the next 200 days is industrial production of the peptide, making it as affordable as possible for growers.

“We don’t need to wait three years to know if this is going to work,” Torresan says.

Even though some of work has already been completed, there is a lot to be done. Torresan stresses that a majority of the work cannot be done without agreement and support from the industry.

–Ashley Robinson, AgNet Media communications intern

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

The post HLB Solution Could Be Available in Three Years appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.