More detail on the upcoming Regents meeting

Friday, November 11, 2022

In a prior posting, we noted that the Regents' agenda for next week's meetings had been placed on the regental website.* However, more detailed attachments were not included at that time. Two items of particular interest in more detail have now appeared. One deals with required statements of faculty regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The other deals with the degree to which UC trust funds can be invested in capital projects such as student housing that might benefit a particular campus.

The first item can at best be described as uncritical. It is a typical government report that describes aims (inputs) but not results (outputs). You will not find any suggestion that DEI statements have engendered controversy. And you will not find any evidence in the report on what the effect of such statements has been. Have they affected recruitment outcomes or retention of faculty? What have those effects, if any, been? Below we reproduce the executive summary which provides the flavor of the report and we provide a link to the full report.

STATEMENTS DESCRIBING FACULTY CONTRIBUTIONS TO INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Over the past quarter century, there has been a purposeful commitment by the University of California to encourage and recognize faculty contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Grounded in academic policy (APM - 210-1-d), the DEI or Inclusive Excellence statement aligns with the University’s role as a public research university dedicated to educating residents and serving communities throughout the state while reaching across the nation and world. Indeed, the University’s reputation as a national leader in inclusive student access and success is critically dependent on the engagement of incumbent and future faculty in various facets of outreach and recruitment as well as degree completion and graduation. The University’s policies and practices on DEI statements do not allow for consideration of the faculty member’s race or gender. Instead, it is the faculty member’s contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion that are evaluated. In sum, DEI statements underscore the University’s institutional commitment to serving the needs of a diverse student body and state.

As an extension of University policy, the adoption and use of DEI or Inclusive Excellence statements are the result of deliberate and extensive consultation with the Academic Senate as faculty have primary responsibility for evaluating applicant DEI statements. Since 2005, the Academic Senate and UC Administration have engaged in an iterative process of refinement and improvement of APM policy and guidance surrounding policy

implementation related to these efforts. This iterative process has fortified the policy while mobilizing the insights and experiences from local campuses for continuous improvement...

Full report at https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov22/a3.pdf.

The Investments Report

As to the issue of whether UC trust funds such as the pension or endowment could be invested in real estate projects that might benefit a campus, the report is more informative than the DEI item. But it gives an answer that campuses might find disappointing. Yes, UC trust funds could be legally invested in, say, a building that rented to students near a campus. However, the building could not be reserved for students and the rents charged would have to be market prices. Similarly, UC trust funds could invest in a building that would house research entities, but it would have to be open to all such entities - not just UC-related programs - and would have to charge market rents. In short, investments have to be commercial ventures that are not de facto subsidies to university activities. At least, that is the interpretation of yours truly.

Y o u c a n f i n d t h e i n v e s t m e n t s r e p o r t a t https://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov22/i1.pdf.

* https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-regents-next-week-big-tenother.html.

To hear the text above, click on the link below:

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/regent%20details.mp3

No Detail on the Regents' Upcoming Discussion of UCLA's Move to the...

Saturday, November 12, 2022

Yesterday, we posted that more detail had been added to the Regents’ agenda for their meetings next week.* However, one item that remains without added detail is the discussion of UCLA’s move to the Big Ten. As of this morning, when you click on that topic, you get an error message – see above - rather than a report.

Meanwhile, an article – also appearing yesterday – in the New York Timessuggests that the Regents don’t have a lot of wiggle room regarding this matter. Basically, the athletics program at UCLA needs the added revenue. If the Regents try to void the deal, or syphon off money to help Berkeley, they create new problems. Excerpt from the Times:

… Crowds have continued to be so barren at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif., that UCLA has averaged only 36,241 fans in six home games, despite the university routinely giving away tens of thousands of tickets. The embarrassment of so many empty seats has become so acute that six sections near each end zone are covered by powder-blue tarps, tightening the 91,136-person seating capacity by more than one-third.

…But UCLA’s struggle for football relevance has had consequences far beyond crowd aesthetics. As college athletics are increasingly driven by billions in football television rights, there may be no better example of how an athletic department’s health is tied to the fortunes of its football team. Thus, even as UCLA’s storied men’s basketball team has returned to national prominence, and as a well-rounded athletic program with 119 team national championships has continued its broad success, football’s shortcomings have torpedoed UCLA’s athletic finances. By the end of the 2021 fiscal year, its shortfall had exceeded $103.1 million, according to the school’s statement of revenues and expenses.

…The financial fall for UCLA has been as swift as it has been steep. Just eight years ago, with a top-10 preseason ranking and a Heisman Trophy candidate at quarterback, Brett Hundley, the Bruins set an attendance record, averaging 76,650 and selling a schoolrecord 46,617 season tickets. This year, season tickets have fallen to 23,077, less than half that high-water mark. Ticket revenue for football has also dived — falling from just under $20 million in 2014 to $9.2 million for the 2019 season. No fans were permitted in the 2020 season because of the pandemic and revenue figures for last season have not been reported. Donations to the athletic program have declined for two consecutive years, falling to $8.4 million for the 2021 fiscal year, which included the 2020 football season. In the 2019 fiscal year, donations were $16.4 million.

…Efforts in recent years to fill empty seats by giving away huge blocks of free tickets haven’t worked. According to data released through a public records request, the school

gave away an average of nearly 25,000 free tickets per game in 2019 and 2021. When UCLA drew 52,578 fans against Oklahoma in 2019, it gave away 39,202 tickets for that game. And last season when the Bruins upset Louisiana State before 68,123, it gave away 29,279 tickets. Those free tickets show that even though UCLA’s attendance in 2019 and 2021 are the lowest since moving to the Rose Bowl, the bottom line has been even worse: Tickets sold accounted for less than 80 percent of the announced attendance in both seasons.

…Attendance, and its impact on UCLA’s bottom line, is apparently a touchy subject in the athletic department. Martin Jarmond, the athletic director, has declined three interview requests from The New York Times in the last 15 months. In July, Jarmond declined an interview request to discuss the move to the Big Ten because an athletic department spokesman, Scott Markley, said he had already addressed the matter. Jarmond, who makes $1.4 million per year, declined an interview request last week about football attendance because he was “not interested in rehashing old news,” Markley said in a email, adding, “perhaps we can make something happen later this winter.” Markley also declined to make available athletic department marketing and ticketing officials for an interview…

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-gameattendance.html.

* http://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2022/11/more-detail-on-upcoming-regentsmeeting.html.

To hear the text above, click on the link below:

https://ia601402.us.archive.org/25/items/big-ten/no%20detail.mp3