ReportWire

Tag: admission

  • South Lake Tahoe mayor resigns after church embezzlement admission

    Tamara Wallace has resigned as the mayor of South Lake Tahoe after her recent admission that she stole money from a church where she worked as an administrator.In a letter to local media earlier this month that included the confession, Wallace said she had been recovering from a suicide attempt and reflecting on the traumatic experiences in her life. She said she aimed to pay back “every cent I have taken.”The El Dorado County district attorney said it was investigating the stolen funds and Wallace’s confession.Wallace submitted her resignation on Monday night, which was effective immediately, the city said. In her letter, Wallace also urged South Lake Tahoe Pro Tem Cody Bass to resign, following his recent arrest. Bass was arrested on Sept. 25 in connection with an alleged assault and threats at a bar where he had been banned. Deputies reviewed surveillance footage and determined Bass was the aggressor. He’s charged with misdemeanor assault, trespassing and harassment.In a previous statement to KCRA 3, Bass said, “I can guarantee my community I did nothing wrong, I believe in due process, bring on the trial.”The city of South Lake Tahoe said its next council meeting is set for Oct. 21. The agenda will include a “council reorganization to select a mayor and mayor pro tem” and “methods for filling the vacant city council seat,” the city said.See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Tamara Wallace has resigned as the mayor of South Lake Tahoe after her recent admission that she stole money from a church where she worked as an administrator.

    In a letter to local media earlier this month that included the confession, Wallace said she had been recovering from a suicide attempt and reflecting on the traumatic experiences in her life. She said she aimed to pay back “every cent I have taken.”

    The El Dorado County district attorney said it was investigating the stolen funds and Wallace’s confession.

    Wallace submitted her resignation on Monday night, which was effective immediately, the city said.

    In her letter, Wallace also urged South Lake Tahoe Pro Tem Cody Bass to resign, following his recent arrest.

    Bass was arrested on Sept. 25 in connection with an alleged assault and threats at a bar where he had been banned.

    Deputies reviewed surveillance footage and determined Bass was the aggressor. He’s charged with misdemeanor assault, trespassing and harassment.

    In a previous statement to KCRA 3, Bass said, “I can guarantee my community I did nothing wrong, I believe in due process, bring on the trial.”

    The city of South Lake Tahoe said its next council meeting is set for Oct. 21.

    The agenda will include a “council reorganization to select a mayor and mayor pro tem” and “methods for filling the vacant city council seat,” the city said.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    Source link

  • As USC considers Trump’s offer tying funding to conservative policies, MIT firmly rejects it

    As USC weighs its options, MIT has become the first of nine universities to forcefully reject a White House proposal that asks them to adopt President Trump’s conservative political agenda in exchange for favorable access to federal funding.

    In a letter to Trump administration officials, MIT President Sally Kornbluth said Friday the campus disagrees with provisions of the proposal, including some that would limit free speech and the university’s independence. She said that Trump’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” is inconsistent with MIT’s belief that scientific funding should be based on merit alone.

    “Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education,” Kornbluth said in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and White House officials.

    The MIT rejection comes as University of Southern California has been roiled by the proposed compact since receiving it earlier this month. The school’s faculty members strongly denounced the offering at a meeting this week, calling it “egregiously invalid,” “probably unconstitutional” and “antithetical to principles of academic freedom.”

    But interim President Beong-Soo Kim told the roughly 500 attendees the university “has not made any kind of final decision.”

    At the same time, Gov. Gavin Newsom has aggressively weighed in, challenging USC “to do the right thing” and reject the offer. He threatened to withhold state funding to any California university that agrees to it.

    White House spokesperson Liz Huston said that “the Trump Administration’s only request is for universities to end discrimination. Any university that refuses this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform higher education isn’t serving its students or their parents — they’re bowing to radical, left-wing bureaucrats.”

    “The truth is, the best science can’t thrive in institutions that have abandoned merit, free inquiry, and the pursuit of truth,” Huston said. “President Trump encourages universities to join us in restoring academic excellence and commonsense policies.”

    What’s in the compact

    The higher-education compact circulated this month requires universities to make a wide range of commitments in line with Trump’s political agenda. In exchange, universities that agree to the terms would get more favorable access to federal research grants and additional funding, as well as other benefits.

    They would have to accept the government’s definition of gender — two sexes, male and female — and would not be allowed to recognize transgender people’s gender identities. Foreign student enrollment would be restricted. The compact also calls for a five-year tuition freeze for U.S. students.

    It asks colleges to require the SAT or ACT for all undergraduate applicants and to eliminate race, sex and other characteristics from admissions decisions. As for free speech, schools would have to commit to promoting a wide range of views on campus — and change or abolish “institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” according to the compact.

    The universities were invited to provide “limited, targeted feedback” by Oct. 20 and make a decision no later than Nov. 21.

    Other institutions that received the 10-page proposal are: Vanderbilt, the University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, the University of Arizona, Brown University, the University of Texas and the University of Virginia. It was not clear how the schools were selected or why.

    Leaders of the Texas system were “honored” that the Austin campus was chosen to be a part of the compact and its “potential funding advantages,” according to a statement from Kevin Eltife, chair of the board of regents.

    University leaders face immense pressure to reject the compact amid opposition from students, faculty, free speech advocates and higher education groups. Leaders of some other universities have called it extortion. The mayor and City Council in Tucson, home of the University of Arizona, formally opposed the compact, calling it an “unacceptable act of federal interference.”

    Some conservatives have criticized it. Frederick Hess, director of education policy at the American Enterprise Institute, called it “profoundly problematic” and said the government’s requests are “ungrounded in law.”

    “I am deeply sympathetic to the Trump critique of higher education,” he told The Times on Friday. “I support just about every point in the compact, but even I have real concerns about the way it has been framed and proffered.”

    But Hess noted that the compact has become something of a “Rorschach test.”

    “If you look at it one way, you see a bullying attempt by the administration to impose its will,” he said. “If you look at it another way, it is the Trump administration offering a positive, constructive vision of the federal-university partnership.”

    The view from Los Angeles

    The USC faculty’s vociferous disapproval of the compact during a meeting of the university’s academic senate on Oct. 6 was in line with the reactions of similar bodies at other affected campuses.

    In stark terms, USC department heads, professors and others condemned the compact, with several saying there should be no negotiations with the Trump administration.

    Kim, the interim president, attended the meeting, but did not share his opinion of the compact. He noted that USC did not solicit the offer from Trump. “I wanted to make sure that I heard from the community and received your input,” he said.

    Asked for comment Friday, a USC spokesperson referred The Times to comments Kim made Oct. 3, when he said that he would consult with the school’s board of trustees and other stakeholders to “hear their wide-ranging perspectives” on the proposal.

    Trump’s proposal comes at a fraught time for USC, which is in the midst of widespread layoffs as it faces down a $200-million budget deficit.

    Across town, UCLA has also been grappling with dire financial issues of its own, albeit ones that directly relate to the president’s forceful attempt to remake higher education.

    UCLA has been negotiating with the Trump administration over a $1.2-billion settlement proposal that would resolve a federal investigation into alleged civil rights violations on campus. The claims stem from UCLA’s handling of alleged antisemitism during spring 2024 pro-Palestinian protests. UC leaders say the fine would be “devastating” to the 10-campus system and have broadly indicated that other proposals violate the university’s mission and values.

    Speaking at a UC-wide academic senate meeting Thursday, UC President James B. Milliken said the “landscape changed” after the Trump administration offered the compact last week to non-UC campuses.

    He did not indicate whether the proposal affected UC negotiations but said that there was a “shift from a bespoke pursuit of universities to a wholesale” targeting of higher education, which he suggested put UC in a safer position. He said he did not know the impact of the compact on UCLA.

    In some ways, the compact presented to USC matches the settlement proposed to UCLA. Both, for example, make stipulations about binary definitions of gender that exclude transgender people.

    But the compact differs in proposing strict limits on foreign student enrollment and the tuition freeze for U.S. citizens.

    Although the compact has not been offered to UC, university officials are studying its contents to better understand Trump’s positions on higher education and formulate a negotiation strategy.

    Colleges nationwide debate compact

    Besides USC and MIT, the compact has been the subject of fierce debate at several other campuses that received it.

    At an Oct. 3 convening of the University of Virginia senate attended by interim President Paul G. Mahoney and hundreds of faculty, senate representatives voted down the compact.

    According to notes on the meeting provided to The Times, faculty expressed concern over academic freedom, discrimination against transgender individuals — and said they feared complying with it would have a “chilling” effect on free speech.

    Three days later, at a meeting of the University of Arizona faculty senate, 81% of voting members rejected the government’s proposal.

    At Dartmouth, President Sian Leah Beilock has also expressed hesitation over signing.

    “I am deeply committed to Dartmouth’s academic mission and values and will always defend our fierce independence,” Beilock said in a statement. “You have often heard me say that higher education is not perfect and that we can do better. At the same time, we will never compromise our academic freedom and our ability to govern ourselves.”

    Some university faculty, including at USC, have voiced skepticism over Trump’s willingness to adhere to the terms of the compact should an institution accept it. That, Hess said, is “a valid concern.”

    “If you look at the deal that have been struck [by the Trump administration] around tariffs and tech, there is certainly a sense that deals … are not written in stone,” he said. “Normally, in these conversations, I am usually very skeptical of faculty concerns, but from what we’ve seen … a lot of these practical concerns are very legitimate.”

    Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

    Daniel Miller, Jaweed Kaleem, Collin Binkley

    Source link

  • Federal judge orders Trump to restore $500 million in frozen UCLA medical research grants

    A federal judge Monday ordered the Trump administration to restore $500 million in UCLA medical research grants, halting for now a nearly two-month funding crisis that UC leaders said threatened the future of the nation’s premier public university system.

    The opinion by U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California added hundreds of UCLA’s National Institutes of Health grants to an ongoing class-action lawsuit that already led to the reversal of tens of millions of dollars in grants from the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Endowment for the Humanities and other federal agencies to the University of California.

    Lin’s order provides the biggest relief to UCLA but affects federal funding awarded to all 10 UC campuses. Lin ruled that the NIH grants were suspended by form letters that were unspecific to the research, a likely violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which regulates executive branch rulemaking.

    In addition to the medical grant freezes — which had prompted talks of possible UCLA layoffs or closures of labs conducting cancer and stroke research, among other studies — Lin said the government would have to restore millions of Department of Defense and Department of Transportation grants to UC schools.

    Lin explained her thinking during a hearing last week. She said the Trump administration committed a “fundamental sin” in its “un-reasoned mass terminations” of grants using “letters that don’t go through the required factors that the agency is supposed to consider.”

    The preliminary injunction will be in place as the lawsuit proceeds. But in broadening the case, Lin agreed with plaintiffs that there would be irreparable harm if the suspensions were not immediately reversed.

    The suit was originally filed in June by UC San Francisco and UC Berkeley professors fighting a separate, earlier round of Trump administration grant clawbacks. UCLA faculty with NIH grants later joined the case.

    The University of California is not a party in the suit.

    The judge, a Biden appointee, told Department of Justice lawyers to make a court filing by Sept. 29 explaining “all steps” the government has take to comply with her order or, if necessary, explain why restoring grants “was not feasible.”

    UC did not immediately respond Monday to a request for comment about the ruling.

    Spokespeople for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, and the Department of Justice did not respond to questions from The Times about the government’s next steps. The Trump administration had appealed an earlier ruling in the case to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Last month, the appeals court declined to reverse that ruling by Lin.

    Prior court orders in the case have resulted in government notices to campuses within days saying that funding will flow again.

    “This is wonderful news for UC researchers and should be tremendously consequential in ongoing UC negotiations with the Trump administration,” said Claudia Polsky, a UC Berkeley law professor who is part of the legal team behind the suit. “The restoration of more than half a billion dollars to UCLA in NIH funding alone gives UC the strongest hand it has had yet in resisting unlawful federal demands.”

    Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, worked with Polsky and argued the case in front of Lin.

    “The judge made clear what she said previously and the 9th Circuit held: The termination of grants was illegal and they must be restored,” he said.

    Trump administration lawyers argued against lifting more grant freezes, saying the case was in the wrong jurisdiction.

    A Justice Department lawyer, Jason Altabet, said during the hearing last week that instead of a District Court lawsuit filed by faculty, the proper venue would be for UC to file a case in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Altabet based his arguments on a recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the government’s suspension of $783 million in NIH grants — to universities and research centers throughout the country — in part because the issue, the high court said, was not correctly within the jurisdiction of a lower federal court.

    In her Monday opinion, Lin disagreed with the government’s position that professors could not sue in District Court or the federal claims court.

    Lin addressed a hypothetical scenario posed to the government in court filings and during last week’s hearing, in which she asked what recourse a faculty member had if “a future administration terminated all grants to researchers with Asian last names.” The government’s position was that there would be none unless the person’s employer, the university, sued, because the grants are given to the institutions, not the researchers.

    Writing Monday, Lin called that an “extreme” view. “This court will not shut its doors” on researchers suing over “constitutional and statutory rights,” she wrote.

    The Trump administration rescinded $584 million in UCLA grants in late July, citing allegations of campus antisemitism, use of race in admissions and the school’s recognition of transgender identities as its reasons. The awards included $81 million from the National Science Foundation — also restored last month by Lin — and $3 million from the Department of Energy, which is still suspended.

    Last month, the government proposed a roughly $1.2-billion fine and demanded wide campus changes over admissions, protest rules, gender-affirming healthcare for minors and the disclosure of internal campus records, among other demands, in exchange for restoring the money.

    UCLA has said it made changes in the last year to improve the climate for Jewish communities and does not use race in admissions. Chancellor Julio Frenk has said that defunding medical research “does nothing” to address discrimination allegations. The university displays websites and policies that recognize different gender identities and maintains services for LGBTQ+ communities.

    UC leaders said they will not pay the $1.2-billion fine and are negotiating with the Trump administration over its other demands. They have told The Times that many settlement proposals cross the university’s red lines.

    The case wasclosely watched by researchers at the Westwood campus, who have cut back on lab hours, reduced operations and considered layoffs as the crisis at UCLA moves toward the two-month mark.

    Neil Garg, a professor of chemistry and biochemistry at UCLA whose roughly four-year, $2.9 million grant was suspended over the summer, said that “people on the campus will be overjoyed” by the injunction.

    “From the scientific side of it, it is incredibly warming to hear that, to see that sort of decision,” said Garg said. “But we will wait and see how things play out.”

    Garg’s 19-person lab works on developing new organic chemistry reactions that could have pharmaceutical applications. “We try to invent chemistry that is unknown,” he explained.

    No one in Garg’s lab lost jobs after his grant was frozen. After the suspension, Garg sought new funding sources. “I have been very aggressive, as have many of my colleagues, in applying,” he said. “Even if the funds are restored, we don’t know how quickly that will happen or how permanent that is.”

    Elle Rathbun, a sixth-year neuroscience doctroal candidate at UCLA, had also lost a roughly $160,000 NIH grant that funded her study of stroke recovery treatment.

    “I am really glad that [the suspension] didn’t last more than these two months,” said Rathbun, who hoped grants return “quickly and efficiently” so researchers can “use the money in ways that we desperately need.”

    Rathbun said the experience showed her “how incredibly precarious of a situation we are in as researchers. And how quickly our lives and our life’s work can seemingly be upended.”

    Jaweed Kaleem, Daniel Miller

    Source link

  • Federal judge is ‘inclined’ to order Trump to restore $500 million in UCLA research grants

    A federal judge Thursday said she was “inclined to extend” an earlier ruling and order the Trump administration to restore an additional $500 million in UCLA medical research grants that were frozen in response to the university’s alleged campus antisemitism violations.

    Although she did not issue a formal ruling late Thursday, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin indicated she is leaning toward reversing — for now — the vast majority of funding freezes that University of California leaders say have endangered the future of the 10-campus, multi-hospital system.

    Lin, a judge in the Northern District of California, said she was prepared to add UCLA’s National Institutes of Health grant recipients to an ongoing class-action lawsuit that has already led to the reversal of tens of millions of dollars in grants from the National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Endowment for the Humanities and other federal agencies to UC campuses.

    The judge’s reasoning: The UCLA grants were suspended by form letters that were unspecific to the research, a likely violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which regulates executive branch rulemaking.

    Though Lin said she had a “lot of homework to do” on the matter, she indicated that reversing the grant cuts was “likely where I will land” and she would issue an order “shortly.”

    Lin said the Trump administration had undertaken a “fundamental sin” in its “un-reasoned mass terminations” of the grants using “letters that don’t go through the required factors that the agency is supposed to consider.”

    The possible preliminary injunction would be in place as the case proceeds through the courts. But in saying she leaned toward broadening the case, Lin suggested she believed there would be irreparable harm if the suspensions were not immediately reversed.

    The suit was filed in June by UC San Francisco and UC Berkeley professors fighting a separate, earlier round of Trump administration grant clawbacks. The University of California is not a party in the case.

    A U.S. Department of Justice lawyer, Jason Altabet, said Thursday that instead of a federal district court lawsuit filed by professors, the proper venue would be the U.S. Court of Federal Claims filed by UC. Altabet based his arguments on a recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld the government’s suspension of $783 million in NIH grants — to universities and research centers throughout the country — in part because the issue, the high court said, was not properly within the jurisdiction of a lower federal court.

    Altabet said the administration was “fully embracing the principles in the Supreme Court’s recent opinions.”

    The hundreds of NIH grants on hold at UCLA look into Parkinson’s disease treatment, cancer recovery, cell regeneration in nerves and other areas that campus leaders argue are pivotal for improving the health of Americans.

    The Trump administration has proposed a roughly $1.2-billion fine and demanded campus changes over admission of international students and protest rules. Federal officials have also called for UCLA to release detailed admission data, ban gender-affirming healthcare for minors and give the government deep access to UCLA internal campus data, among other demands, in exchange for restoring $584 million in funding to the university.

    In addition to allegations that the university has not seriously dealt with complaints of antisemitism on campus, the government also said it slashed UCLA funding in response to its findings that the campus illegally considers race in admissions and “discriminates against and endangers women” by recognizing the identities of transgender people.

    UCLA has said it has made changes to improve campus climate for Jewish communities and does not use race in admissions. Its chancellor, Julio Frenk, has said that defunding medical research “does nothing” to address discrimination allegations. The university displays websites and policies that recognize different gender identities and maintains services for LGBTQ+ communities.

    UC leaders said they will not pay the $1.2-billion fine and are negotiating with the Trump administration over its other demands. They have told The Times that many settlement proposals cross the university’s red lines.

    “Recent federal cuts to research funding threaten lifesaving biomedical research, hobble U.S. economic competitiveness and jeopardize the health of Americans who depend on cutting-edge medical science and innovation,” a UC spokesperson said in a statement Thursday. “While the University of California is not a party to this suit, the UC system is engaged in numerous legal and advocacy efforts to restore funding to vital research programs across the humanities, social sciences and STEM fields.”

    A ruling Lin issued in the case last month resulted in $81 million in NSF grants restored to UCLA. If the UCLA NIH grants are reinstated, it would leave about $3 million from the July suspensions — all Department of Energy grants — still frozen at UCLA.

    Lin also said she leaned toward adding Transportation and Defense department grants to the case, which run in the millions of dollars but are small compared with UC’s NIH grants.

    The hearing was closely watched by researchers at the Westwood campus, who have cut back on lab hours, reduced operations and considered layoffs as the crisis at UCLA moves toward the two-month mark.

    In interviews, they said they were hopeful grants would be reinstated but remain concerned over the instability of their work under the recent federal actions.

    Lydia Daboussi, a UCLA assistant professor of neurobiology whose $1-million grant researching nerve injury is suspended, observed the hearing online.

    Aftewards, Daboussi said she was “cautiously optimistic” about her grant being reinstated.

    “I would really like this to be the relief that my lab needs to get our research back online,” said Daboussi, who is employed at the David Geffen School of Medicine. “If the preliminary injunction is granted, that is a wonderful step in the right direction.”

    Grant funding, she said, “was how we bought the antibodies we needed for experiments, how we purchased our reagents and our consumable supplies.” The lab consists of nine other people, including two PhD students and one senior scientist.

    So far, none of Daboussi’s lab members have departed. But, she said, if “this goes on for too much longer, at some point, people’s hours will have to be reduced.”

    “I do find myself having to pay more attention to volatilities outside of our lab space,” she said. “I’ve now become acquainted with our legal system in ways that I didn’t know would be necessary for my job.”

    Elle Rathbun, a sixth-year neuroscience PhD candidate at UCLA, lost a roughly $160,000 NIH grant that funded her study of stroke recovery treatment.

    “If there is a chance that these suspensions are lifted, that is phenomenal news,” said Rathbun, who presented at UCLA’s “Science Fair for Suspended Research” this month.

    “Lifting these suspensions would then allow us to continue these really critical projects that have already been determined to be important for American health and the future of American health,” she said.

    Rathbun’s research is focused on a potential treatment that would be injected into the brain to help rebuild it after a stroke. Since the suspension of her grant, Rathbun, who works out of a lab at UCLA’s neurology department, has been seeking other funding sources.

    “Applying to grants takes a lot of time,” she said. “So that really slowed down my progress in my project.”

    Jaweed Kaleem, Daniel Miller

    Source link

  • Charles E. Young, UCLA’s longest-serving chancellor, dies at 91

    Charles E. Young, UCLA’s longest-serving chancellor, dies at 91

    Charles E. Young, the fiery, fiercely outspoken chancellor of UCLA credited with turning the campus into an academic powerhouse, died of natural causes Sunday at his home in Sonoma, Calif. He was 91.

    At the helm of UCLA for 29 years, Young oversaw its transformation from a small regional campus to one of the nation’s premier research universities.

    “During his long tenure, Chuck Young guided UCLA toward what it is today: one of the nation’s most comprehensive and respected research universities and one that is profoundly dedicated to inclusiveness and diversity,” UCLA Chancellor Gene Block said in a statement announcing Young’s death.

    When Young started in the job at the age of 36 in 1968, he was the youngest chancellor in University of California history. When he retired in 1997, he would be one of the longest-serving leaders of an American university.

    UCLA grew rapidly under his watch. Its annual operating budget increased tenfold to $1.7 billion. The number of undergraduates increased from 19,000 to 24,000. And the number of endowed professorships rose from one to more than 100.

    At the time of his retirement, the president of the American Council on Education called Young “one of the most admired and respected figures in American higher education.”

    Young regularly sparred with his bosses on the UC Board of Regents.

    Just months after becoming chancellor, Young famously refused to fire political activist Angela Davis, then an acting professor in UCLA’s philosophy department, despite pressure from the regents after they learned she was a member of the Communist Party.

    Young would call the episode a “seminal moment” in his career, catapulting him into the national spotlight and allowing him to clearly carve out a position on academic freedom.

    And when the board debated how to implement a ban on affirmative action in admissions, Young, a staunch supporter of affirmative action, rallied loudly against the plan. He often spoke publicly about the importance of ensuring public universities are easily accessible to students of color.

    “The notion that we’re doing it for ‘them’ is wrong,” Young said a year before he retired. “This is something we do for all of us.”

    Through the years, the academic leader widely known as “Chuck” rode out the turbulence of campus radicalism and state politics. He was a commanding figure who came to be recognized as a superb manager with an exceptionally quick mind. And he lived down early skepticism that he was too young, too much the hand-picked choice of his predecessor, Franklin D. Murphy, and not enough of a scholar to last long amid the intellectual battles of academia.

    Charismatic and sometimes hot-tempered, Young defied the image of a bookish academic leader. He sought to run UCLA more like a private institution and was a respected fund-raiser who developed a network of high-profile entertainment friends such as composer Henry Mancini, movie producer Walter Mirisch and actor Charlton Heston.

    Young earned a doctorate in political science from UCLA — only eight years before becoming the campus’ chancellor — but he had little or no work published in academic journals.

    “Young makes no pretense of being a scholar,” said a 1968 article in Time magazine about his selection by the Board of Regents to head UCLA. He was chosen, the magazine said, “primarily because of his record as an administrator who can get along with students,” during a time of heightened political tension because of the Vietnam War and the growing Black empowerment movement.

    By the time he retired, UCLA’s faculty had doubled and the school’s operating budget was more than 10 times larger than when he started. On his watch, the number of endowed professorships climbed from one to nearly 120.

    During his reign, UCLA emerged as an athletic powerhouse, winning 61 men’s and seven women’s NCAA Division I team championships in an array of sports. He was not a distinguished athlete himself — his main achievement in organized sports was playing football in his senior year of high school. But he was an enthusiastic spectator at UCLA athletic events, rarely missing a home football or basketball game.

    Early on, Young earned praise for his sympathetic handling of student unrest. A few months after he became chancellor, two student members of the Black Panther Party were killed on campus in an alleged dispute over the leadership of the Black Studies Center. Young helped calm the jittery school. Later, during Vietnam War protests, he refused to allow police to clear out students who had occupied administration offices.

    But one of Young’s most dramatic challenges came shortly after his formal inauguration as chancellor on May 23, 1969, when he defied UC regents by refusing to fire Davis over her membership in the Communist Party. The regents themselves eventually ousted Davis at UCLA, although she later returned to the UC system to teach at UC Santa Cruz and, in 2014, nearly a half-century after her ouster from UCLA, triumphantly returned to campus as a Regent’s Lecturer in gender studies, a prestigious appointment.

    Young’s defense of Davis’ right to work at UCLA led to what he later described as an emotionally draining series of confrontations with then-Gov. Ronald Reagan, who urged regents to oust Davis.

    In 1970, Young told The Times, “At some point there has got to be a time when somebody in this university stands up and says, ‘I’ve had it. I’ve had enough.’ This is a real case of academic freedom because Angela Davis is an undesirable character to much of the public…. The place where you find out whether the system works is in the tough cases, not the easy ones everybody agrees with.”

    Years later, Young elaborated, saying, “I was not supporting Angela Davis, I was supporting the principle. Angela Davis was a mediocre scholar and a mediocre lecturer and a mediocre person, as far as I could tell.” Other academics, however, had a far more favorable view of Davis, whom they saw as an important intellect whose call for anti-racist action is only now being embraced.

    Over his long tenure, Young encountered criticism over financial and compensation issues. An associate, a UCLA vice chancellor, was prosecuted, fired and forced to repay the university’s fund-raising foundation $85,000 in disallowed expenses. Investigations found no impropriety by Young in that episode or with UCLA donors paying the rent for the chancellor’s summer beach house, yacht club membership or vacation trip to Tahiti — but criticism mounted.

    In the early 1990s, particularly after an unsuccessful bid to become president of the UC system, Young was faulted by critics for becoming a disengaged chancellor who was living like a highly paid corporate CEO. A Times investigation in the mid-1990s found that Young and his top aides in some cases were instrumental in giving special consideration in admissions, at the request of donors and other well-connected figures, to less-qualified or rejected applicants.

    Young, in turn, occasionally unleashed his temper on his opponents. He triggered a brief flap with then-UC Regent Ward Connerly, a foe of affirmative action, by comparing him to the late Jesse Helms, a staunch conservative Republican senator from North Carolina who had voted against civil rights legislation. Young, though an ardent supporter of affirmative action, later apologized to Connerly.

    When he announced his plans to retire, Young was widely praised for elevating UCLA’s stature, but some critics said his departure was overdue.

    Young endured turmoil and tragedy in his personal life. He was arrested for drunk driving after a car wreck near the campus in 1975, during a period of personal problems. Later on, he called it a “near-crisis situation” and admitted he had a problem with alcohol, which he resolved by getting sober.

    Young was born in San Bernardino on Dec. 30, 1931, the only son of two psychiatric nursing aides at Patton State Hospital in Highland. His parents separated when he was a child.

    In his oral history, Young recalled a childhood of growing up in a rural, orange-growing region. He taught himself to read by age 4 and got his first job at a local packinghouse at 12.

    He attended San Bernardino Valley College, where he met his first wife, Sue Daugherty. They married in 1950, when both were 18.

    Young soon dropped out of school and took a job in the appliance department of a department store. He was then called to active duty with the Air National Guard during the Korean War and served in Japan.

    After his stint in the military, Young returned to San Bernardino Valley College and became a determined, standout student. He went on to receive his bachelor’s degree at UC Riverside, where he was the new campus’ first student body president. From there he earned a master’s and a doctorate in political science at UCLA.

    After serving as a congressional fellow in Washington, D.C., Young joined the staff of UC President Clark Kerr in 1959. In that role, he worked on the creation of the state’s master plan for higher education, which continues to guide policy in California.

    In 1960, the same year he earned his doctorate with a dissertation on legislative redistricting, Young went to work on the Westwood campus as an assistant to Murphy, then the school’s new chancellor. He quickly moved up the ladder, eventually becoming vice chancellor for administration and a full professor in the political science department before being named by UC Regents to succeed Murphy in 1968.

    Two years after retiring from UCLA, Young accepted what was to be a short-term interim appointment as the president of the University of Florida in Gainesville, but he wound up staying for four years. Later, at age 72, he became president of an educational and scientific foundation in Qatar, a stint that lasted slightly over a year.

    In the fall of 2008, at the age of 76, Young returned to UCLA to teach an undergraduate public policy and political science course on the history of the American presidency. That same year, Young was asked by philanthropist Eli Broad to help lead the Museum of Contemporary Art out of financial peril after its endowment shriveled from $40 million to $6 million in just nine years.

    Seemingly unable to retire for long, Young agreed in 2017 to take over as superintendent of the public school district in Sonoma, where he and his wife retired to be closer to family. The K-12 district was battered by financial difficulties and led by what he believed was a dysfunctional school board.

    But his affection for UCLA never waned, and he returned again and again, sometimes simply to stroll across the campus.

    “I’m amazed at the fact that I can wander around this campus and be treated like an old friend,” Young said. “And I think, in a way, that’s the accomplishment.”

    His wife of 51 years, Sue K. Young, a major force in UCLA fundraising, died in 2001 after battling breast cancer for years. One of their two children, Elizabeth, died in 2006 after suffering a cerebral aneurysm while walking on the beach near Malibu.

    Young is survived by his wife, Judy Cornell, whom he married in 2002, and son, Charles Jr. In a statement Sunday, UCLA said it is planning an event in the coming months to celebrate his legacy.

    Silverstein is a former Times staff writer.

    Stuart Silverstein, Rebecca Ellis

    Source link