ReportWire

Tag: UC Berkeley

  • Times Investigation: Ex-Trump DOJ lawyers say ‘fraudulent’ UC antisemitism probes led them to quit

    [ad_1]

    Nine former Department of Justice attorneys assigned to investigate alleged antisemitism at the University of California described chaotic and rushed directives from the Trump administration and told The Times they felt pressured to conclude that campuses had violated the civil rights of Jewish students and staff.

    In interviews over several weeks, the career attorneys — who together served dozens of years — said they were given the instructions at the onset of the investigations. All nine attorneys resigned during the course of their UC assignments, some concerned that they were being asked to violate ethical standards.

    “Initially we were told we only had 30 days to come up with a reason to be ready to sue UC,” said Ejaz Baluch, a former senior trial attorney who was assigned to investigate whether Jewish UCLA faculty and staff faced discrimination on campus that the university did not properly address. “It shows just how unserious this exercise was. It was not about trying to find out what really happened.”

    In spring 2024, increasingly tumultuous protests over Israel’s war in Gaza racked UCLA. Jewish students and faculty reported “broad-based perceptions of antisemitic and anti-Israeli bias on campus,” a UCLA antisemitism task force found. A group later sued, charging that UCLA violated their civil rights, and won millions of dollars and concessions in a settlement.

    UCLA avoided trial, but the suit — along with articles from conservative websites such as the Washington Free Beacon — formed a basis for the UC investigations, the former DOJ lawyers said.

    “UCLA came the closest to having possibly broken the law in how it responded or treated civil rights complaints from Jewish employees,” Baluch said. “We did have enough information from our investigation to warrant suing UCLA.” But Baluch said, “We believed that such a lawsuit had significant weaknesses.”

    “To me, it’s even clearer now that it became a fraudulent and sham investigation,” another lawyer said.

    A DOJ spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. When it announced findings against UCLA in late July, Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet K. Dhillon — the DOJ civil rights chief — said the campus “failed to take timely and appropriate action in response to credible claims of harm and hostility on its campus.” Dhillon said there was a “clear violation of our federal civil rights laws.” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said UCLA would “pay a heavy price.”

    The former DOJ attorneys’ description of their Trump administration work offers a rare view inside the government’s UC probe. For months, university officials have said little publicly about their ongoing talks with the DOJ. Their strategy has been to tread cautiously and negotiate an out-of-court end to the investigations and financial threats — without further jeopardizing the $17.5 billion in federal funds UC receives.

    Four attorneys said they were particularly troubled by two matters. First, they were asked to write up a “j-memo” — a justification memorandum — that explained why UC should face a lawsuit “before we even knew the facts,” one attorney said.

    “Then there was the PR campaign,” the attorney said, referring to announcements beginning with a Feb. 28, 2025, press release saying investigators would be visiting UCLA, UC Berkeley, USC and seven other universities nationwide because the campuses “have experienced antisemitic incidents since October 2023.”

    “Never before in my time across multiple presidential administrations did we send out press releases essentially saying workplaces or colleges were guilty of discrimination before finding out if they really were,” said one attorney, who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation.

    Jen Swedish, a former deputy chief on the employment discrimination team who worked on the UCLA case, said “virtually everything about the UC investigation was atypical.”

    “The political appointees essentially determined the outcome almost before the investigation had even started,” said Swedish, referring to Trump administration officials who declared publicly that punishing colleges for antisemitism would be a priority. She resigned in May.

    The lawyers spoke out because their formal connections to the DOJ recently ended. Many said they believed the Trump administration had compromised the integrity of the department with what they viewed as aggressive, politically motivated actions against UC and other elite U.S. campuses.

    “I think there were absolutely Jewish people on campuses that faced legitimate discrimination. But the way we were pushed so hard to investigate, it was clear to so many of us that this was a political hit job that actually would end up not helping anyone,” said one attorney who worked on UC Davis and UCLA and interviewed students.

    In a statement, a UC spokesperson said, “While we cannot speak to the DOJ’s practices, UC will continue to act in good faith and in the best interests of our students, staff, faculty, and patients. Our focus is on solutions that keep UC strong for Californians and Americans.”

    The government has not sued UC.

    But in August, the DOJ demanded that the university pay a $1.2-billion fine and agree to sweeping, conservative-leaning campus policy changes to settle federal antisemitism accusations. In exchange, the Trump administration would restore $584 million in frozen grant funding. At the time, Gov. Gavin Newsom called the proposal “extortion.”

    Last month, after UC faculty independently sued, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin ruled that the “coercive and retaliatory” proposal violated the 1st Amendment. Lin blocked the fine and the demands for deep campus changes.

    “Agency officials, as well as the president and vice president, have repeatedly and publicly announced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding, with the goal of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune,” Lin said.

    Her ruling does not preclude UC from negotiating with the administration or reaching other agreements with Trump.

    Protests roiled campuses in spring 2024

    The federal investigations largely focused on the tumultuous pro-Palestinian campus protests that erupted at UC campuses. On April 30, 2024, a pro-Israel vigilante group attacked a UCLA encampment, resulting in injuries to student and faculty activists. Police failed to bring the situation under control for hours — a melee former Chancellor Gene Block called a “dark chapter” in the university’s history.

    During the 2023-24 UC protests, some Jewish students and faculty described hostile climates and formal antisemitism complaints to the schools increased. Some Jews said they faced harassment for being Zionists. Others said they encountered symbols and chants at protests and encampments, such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which they viewed as antisemitic. Jews were also among the leading encampment activists.

    In June 2024, Jewish UCLA students and faculty sued UC, saying the encampment blocked them from accessing Dickson Court and Royce Quad. The four blamed the university for anti-Jewish discrimination, saying it enabled pro-Palestinian activists to protest. On July 29, 2025, UC agreed to pay $6.45 million to settle the federal suit.

    In response to the demonstrations and suit, UC overhauled its free speech policies, banning protests that aren’t preapproved from vast portions of campus. It said it would strictly enforce existing bans on overnight encampments and the use of masks to hide identity while breaking the law, and agreed to not prohibit campus access to Jews and other legally protected groups.

    Inside the investigations

    The nine former DOJ lawyers worked between January and June researching whether UC campuses mishandled complaints of antisemitism filed by Jewish students, faculty and staff tied to pro-Palestinian encampments. They were involved with two areas under the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division — employment litigation and educational opportunities — tasked with looking into potential discrimination faced by UC employees and students.

    The attorneys described an at times rushed process that concentrated legal staffing on probing antisemitism at UC campuses, to the detriment of other discrimination cases focused on racial minorities and people who are disabled.

    At one point, attorneys said, more than half of the dozens of lawyers in the employment litigation section were assigned solely or nearly exclusively to UC campuses, with some told specifically to research the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine and other campus divisions. As lawyers begin to quit, the attorneys said, additional staff was brought in from other DOJ teams — those focused on tax law and immigrant employment law.

    When five lawyers in the mid-spring reported minimal findings at Berkeley, Davis and San Francisco campuses, they were reassigned to UCLA.

    “It was like UCLA was the crown jewel among public universities that the Trump administration wanted to ‘get,’ similar to Harvard for privates,” said another attorney, who requested anonymity because they feared retaliation for speaking out. “There were meetings where managers — who were career employees like us — would convey that political appointees and even the White House wanted us all on UCLA.”

    Dena Robinson, a former senior trial attorney, investigated Berkeley, Davis and Los Angeles campuses.

    “I was someone who volunteered on my own to join the investigation and I did so because of some of my lived experience. I’m a Black woman. I’m also Jewish,” she said. But she described concerns about fast and shifting deadlines. “And I am highly skeptical of whether this administration actually cares about Jewish people or antisemitism.”

    Lawyers described similar views and patterns in the Educational Opportunities Section, where UC investigations were concurrently taking place.

    A 10th attorney, Amelia Huckins, said she resigned from that section to avoid being assigned to UC.

    “I did not want to be part of a team where I’m asked to make arguments that don’t comport with the law and existing legal precedent,” she said.

    Huckins had been away from the job for a little more than two months when she read findings the DOJ released July 29 saying that UCLA acted with “deliberate indifference” to Jewish students and employees and threatened to sue the university if it did not come to a settlement.

    In those findings, the DOJ said, “Jewish and Israeli students at UCLA were subjected to severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment that created a hostile environment by members of the encampment.” As evidence, it cited 11 complaints from Jewish or Israeli students regarding discrimination between April 25 and May 1, 2024.

    It was “as if they only talked to particular students and used public documents like media reports,” Huckins said, adding that the evidence publicly presented seemed thin. In a “normal investigation,” attorneys research “different layers of document and data requests and interviews at every level of the university system.” Those investigations, she said, can take at least a year, if not longer.

    What investigators encountered

    Attorneys described site visits at several UC campuses over the spring, including meetings with campus administrators, civil rights officers, police chiefs and UC lawyers who attended interviews — including at least one with UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk.

    The lawyers said UC leaders were cooperative and shared campus policies about how civil rights complaints are handled as well as information detailing the way specific cases were treated, such as those of faculty who said they faced harassment.

    “There were thousands and thousands of pages of documents and many interviews,” said Baluch, referring to Berkeley and Davis. “There may have been harassment here and there, but there was not a lot that rose to the level of the university violating federal law, which is a pretty high bar.”

    “We identified certain incidents at Berkeley and at Davis that were kind of flash points. There were a couple of protests that seemed to get out of hand. There were the encampments. There was graffiti. But we just did not see a really hostile work environment,” said another attorney who visited those campuses. “And if there was a hostile environment, it seemed to have been remediated by the end of 2024 or even May or June for that matter.”

    However, at UCLA, Baluch said he and team members found “problems with the complaint system and that some of the professors were genuinely harassed and to such a severe level that it violates Title VII.” Eventually, he said “we successfully convinced the front office that we should only be going after UCLA.”

    Where UC and Trump administration stand today

    When Harvard faced major grant freezes and civil rights violation findings, it sued the Trump administration. UC has so far opted against going to court — and is willing to engage in “dialogue” to settle ongoing investigations and threats.

    “Our priorities are clear: protect UC’s ability to educate students, conduct research for the benefit of California and the nation, and provide high-quality health care,” said UC spokesperson Rachel Zaentz. “We will engage in good-faith dialogue, but we will not accept any outcome that cripples UC’s core mission or undermines taxpayer investments.”

    The calculation, according to UC sources, is simple. They want to avoid a head-on conflict with Trump because UC has too much federal money on the line. They point to Harvard — which suffered major grant losses and federal restrictions on its patents and ability to enroll international students after publicly challenging the president.

    “Our strategy before was to lay low and avoid Trump any way we could,” said a UC official, who was not authorized to speak on the record. “After the UCLA grants were pulled and the settlement offer came in, the tactic shifted to ‘playing nice’” without agreeing to its terms.

    In public remarks to the board of regents last month at UCLA, UC President James B. Milliken said “the stakes are enormous” and presented data on funding challenges: Under Trump, more than 1,600 federal grants have been cut. About 400 grants worth $230 million remained suspended after faculty court wins.

    UC “is still facing a potential loss of more than a billion dollars in federal research funding,” Milliken said.

    “The coming months may require even tougher choices across the university,” he said.

    No information about a possible UC-Trump settlement has been released. But some former DOJ lawyers said they believe a settlement is inevitable.

    “It’s devastating that these institutions are feeling pressured and bullied into these agreements,” said Huckins, speaking of deals with Columbia, Brown, Cornell and other campuses. “I would love it if more schools would stand up to the administration … I recognize that they’re in a hard spot.”

    To Baluch, who worked on the UCLA case, it appeared that the DOJ had the upper hand.

    “Cutting grants is a huge hit to a university. And the billion-dollars fine is a lot. I see why these universities feel backed into a corner to settle,” he said. “The threats, they are working.”

    [ad_2]

    Jaweed Kaleem

    Source link

  • Trump administration to investigate UC Berkeley over Turning Point USA event

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation into the University of California at Berkeley Tuesday over violence that erupted earlier this month at protests outside an event organized by conservative group Turning Point USA.

    The department said it will investigate whether UC Berkeley violated the Jeanne Clery Campus Safety Act, a federal law that requires colleges and universities that receive federal financial aid to record and report campus crime data.

    The announcement comes as UC Berkeley also faces a Department of Justice investigation into the university’s handling of the event and protests, which resulted in at least four arrests and left one person injured after being struck in the head by a thrown object. Turning Point USA, a nonprofit that promotes conservative values on high school and college campuses, was co-founded by Charlie Kirk, who was fatally shot in September during a tour stop at a university in Utah.

    “Just two months after Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was brutally assassinated on a college campus, UC Berkeley allowed a protest of a Turning Point USA event on its grounds to turn unruly and violent, jeopardizing the safety of its students and staff,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement Tuesday.

    She said the department is reviewing UC Berkeley’s procedures to ensure that it maintains campus safety and security.

    “This is not about students’ First Amendment rights to protest peacefully. This is about ensuring accurate and transparent reporting of crime statistics to the campus community and guaranteeing that every student can safely participate in educational programs and activities,” McMahon said. “The department will vigorously investigate this matter to ensure that a recipient of federal funding is not allowing its students to be at risk.”

    In a statement Tuesday, UC Berkeley said the university has “an unwavering commitment” to abide by the laws and will cooperate with the investigations, as well as continue to host speakers and events representing a variety of viewpoints “in a safe and respectful manner.”

    The university said the campus provided public reports about two violent crimes that happened that evening — a fistfight over an attempted robbery and the person hit by a thrown object.

    “The campus administration went to great lengths to support the First Amendment rights of all by deploying a large number of police officers from multiple jurisdictions and a large number of contracted private security personnel,” the university said Tuesday. “The campus also closed adjoining buildings and cordoned off part of the campus in order to prevent criminal activity, keep the peace, and ensure the event was not disrupted by protests.”

    The Education Department’s office of Federal Student Aid will lead the investigation. It gave UC Berkeley 30 days to provide copies of the school’s annual security report, all incidents of crime from 2022-2024, all arrests made by law enforcement and referrals for disciplinary action against students or employees disclosed in the annual security report, daily crime logs from 2022-2025 and several other reports.

    In 2020, UC Berkeley was fined $2.35 million for failing to comply with the Clery Act after a six-year federal review revealed thousands of crime incidents were misclassified — the majority of which were related to liquor, drug and weapons violations. UC Berkeley said the campus had referred students for disciplinary proceedings but wrongly classified the violations — many involving minors in possession of alcohol in residence halls — as a campus policy violation rather than a law violation, as required under the Clery Act.

    The Department of Education’s investigation — started in July 2014 — also found a range of issues including failure to comply with sexual violence policies and procedures, failure to maintain accurate and complete daily crime logs, failure to disclose accurate hate crime statistics and failure to issue emergency notifications. UC Berkeley entered into a settlement agreement with the Education Department in 2020 and acknowledged that the campus had made “many administrative errors in the past,” but said it has taken aggressive steps toward improvement.

    Notably, the Education Department’s finding that the campus failed to issue emergency notifications surrounded a campus visit by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos in February 2017, which sparked violent protests and caused $100,000 in damages to the campus, the school said.

    The Education Department’s investigation said the university failed to notify students of any violence until an hour after protests began to escalate — a delay the department said could have compromised community members’ safety. In a response to the department, UC Berkeley said the finding was based on an incorrect timeline of events and that it had alerted the community immediately after learning the protest had become violent.

    [ad_2]

    Molly Gibbs

    Source link

  • UC Berkeley student hospitalized after reportedly drowning at off-campus fraternity

    [ad_1]


    A UC Berkeley student was hospitalized after reportedly drowning at an off-campus fraternity on Friday, the university’s Student Affairs said Saturday.

    The university said they were aware of reports of a student drowning Friday night while at a recognized fraternity that is located off-campus.

    “Our thoughts are with the student, their family, loved ones and friends during this time,” UC Berkeley said. “We are following our protocols to offer support to the student and their family. The safety and wellbeing of our students remains our top priority.”

    UC Berkeley said free psychological services are provided to students, and any student in need should reach out to the Counseling and Psychological Services.

    There is an ongoing police investigation, the university said. 

    CBS News Bay Area has reached out to Berkeley police, the Berkeley Fire Department and University police.

    [ad_2]

    Jose Fabian

    Source link

  • Feds investigating protest outside Turning Point USA event at UC Berkeley

    [ad_1]

    A federal investigation has been launched into a protest outside Monday night’s Turning Point USA event at UC Berkeley, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

    “Antifa is an existential threat to our nation,” Bondi said in an X post on Tuesday. “The violent riots at UC Berkeley last night are under full investigation by the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force.

    Mark Trannell with the Center for American Civil Liberty believes UC Berkeley did not do enough to ensure the safety of attendees, who he claims had to walk through screaming protesters to leave the event. Trannell said many were scared for their physical safety.

    “Opening an investigation is the bare minimum of what we should expect from our justice department,” Trannell said. “The university knew better. It could’ve done more to prepare, and I hope that the university will take this as a learning opportunity and to prepare better for the future.”

    But Hoku Jeffrey, who helped organize the protest, calls the claims baseless.

    Besides a scuffle before dark that led to some arrests including the arrest of a man wearing a red Charlie Kirk T-shirt, the protest was relatively peaceful and effective, Jeffrey said.

    “I thought it was a real victory,” Jeffrey said. “The students of the Berkeley campus took over their campus and made clear we’re not going to be bullied or intimidated by Turning Point USA’s fascist organizing by Donald Trump.”

    UC Berkeley said it has not been notified of any Department of Justice investigation, but intends to fully cooperate.

    “There is no place at UC Berkeley for attempts to use violence or intimidation to prevent lawful expression or chill free speech,” the university said in a statement.

    UC Berkeley in the statement also said the “event proceeded safely and without interruption, with more than 900 participants in attendance.”

    Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon appeared on Fox on Tuesday and promised a thorough look at potential failures of UC Berkeley.

    “I also have concerns as the top civil rights lawyer in the United States about whether the Berkeley police are doing their job under the law to protect citizens equally,” Dhillon said in the Fox interview.

    As to whether a civil lawsuit is also coming, the Center for American Liberty, the organization Dhillon founded, said we will have to wait and see.

    [ad_2]

    Jodi Hernandez

    Source link

  • They said it: Making peace with housing on Berkeley’s People’s Park

    [ad_1]

    “We have to live with it forever, so I felt like maybe we should give input on what we like and do not like. Maybe the wolf will pull off her head and it will actually be grandma. That’s not going to happen, but I like to grab onto some optimism.”

    — Lisa Teague with the People’s Park Council, a community group that advocates for protecting Berkeley’s iconic park, on working with UC Berkeley and a landscape architecture company to honor the park’s legacy as a hub of political activism as it is developed for student housing.

    [ad_2]

    Bay Area News Group

    Source link

  • California physicist and Nobel laureate John Martinis won’t quit on quantum computers

    [ad_1]

    A California physicist and Nobel laureate who laid the foundation for quantum computing isn’t done working.

    For the last 40 years, John Martinis has worked — mostly within California — to create the fastest computers ever built.

    “It’s kind of my professional dream to do this by the time I’m really too old to retire. I should retire now, but I’m not doing that,” the now 67-year-old said.

    Born and raised in San Pedro, Martinis said his California high school teachers influenced him to pursue his career. A physics teacher got him interested in the topic, he said, and a math teacher taught him rigor, work ethic and organization.

    “I think before then I’d just write down the solution” rather than showing his process, he joked in an interview with The Times.

    As an undergraduate senior at UC Berkeley in the 1980s, he met John Clarke, a British physicist and professor who would become his graduate advisor and Michel Devoret, a French physicist who worked with him as a postdoctoral researcher.

    John Clarke, right, a professor emeritus of physics, looks on during a celebration at UC Berkeley on Oct. 7, 2025, after he and fellow physicists Michel Devoret and John Martinis were awarded the 2025 Nobel Prize in physics for their work on quantum tunneling.

    (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

    “This was a fantastic experience, to be mentored by two wonderful people,” he said during a news conference Tuesday at UC Santa Barbara, where he works as a professor. “I learned so much from them that, through my whole career, I was kind of trying to re-create that spirit that we had in there.”

    Martinis was awarded the 2025 Nobel Prize in physics, alongside Clarke and Devoret, for his doctoral project, a series of experiments in the mid-1980s that proved quantum tunneling was possible with large objects, which became the basis for the development of quantum computers as well as much of the current research in that field.

    Both Clarke and Devoret are based in the U.S. and associated with the University of California system — Clarke as a professor emeritus at Berkeley and Devoret as a professor at UC Santa Barbara.

    “I loved Berkeley. It was great to be taught by these really amazing professors,” Martinis said, noting the university’s cutting-edge facilities that supported the experiments. “As a student, I could focus on just being a good scientist.”

    Martinis went on to do a postdoctoral fellowship in France, then returned stateside to Boulder, Colo., where he worked at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a U.S. government lab. In 2008 he moved back to California to work at UC Santa Barbara as a professor, and in 2014, Google hired him and Devoret to create an experimental quantum processor faster than any human supercomputer — which his team completed five years later.

    “It really was all this basic research we did for decades that enabled this to happen and enabled us to have a vision … to build this thing,” Martinis said.

    He chose UC Santa Barbara as a workplace not just because of the great location and weather, but also for its advanced facilities and community. Researchers from other disciplines — such as engineers and materials scientists who build semiconductors — are able to freely communicate and collaborate with his team.

    “Working with talented and friendly people at the university is really special,” he said. “You can actually get things done.”

    Martinis said he has enjoyed hearing back from former students who have reached out to celebrate his award. Speaking to students years after they take his classes and grasp the effect on their lives has been refreshing. His work over the years has spawned an industry that created thousands of well-paying jobs for people across the country, he said.

    He praised the UC system for its culture and collaboration with the private sector and government, but said that research and development for quantum computers in the U.S. must urgently speed up if we expect to see it in our lifetimes.

    After leaving Google in 2020, Martinis co-founded his private company, QoLab, in 2022 with a belief that advanced semiconductor chips are the path to achieving usable quantum computers. The company has begun collaborating with other startup companies and academic groups involved in semiconductor production, he said.

    “I think this collaborative model is going to be more fruitful because we really get a lot of interesting ideas,” Martinis said. “We have a lot to catch up on. But it’s a very good atmosphere to invent things.”

    [ad_2]

    Sandra McDonald

    Source link

  • UC Berkeley professor Omar Yaghi wins Nobel prize in chemistry

    [ad_1]

    UC Berkeley professor Omar Yaghi, a Jordanian immigrant molded by the American public school system, reached the pinnacle of his field on Wednesday, sharing the Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

    After receiving the award for his work on metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), which have incalculable applications, Yaghi acknowledged the role his American education played in the realization of his work at a press conference.

    “This recognition is really a testament of the power of the public school system in the U.S. that takes people like me — with a major disadvantaged background, a refugee background — and allows you to work hard and distinguish yourself,” Yaghi said. “Especially UC Berkeley, where the faculty are given full freedom to explore, fail and succeed.”

    Yaghi’s discoveries with MOFs – along with co-winners Richard Robson of the University of Melbourne, Australia, and Susumu Kitagawa of Kyoto University, Japan – have broad implications for emerging technologies such as water capture from desert winds, toxic gas containment and carbon sequestration from the atmosphere.

    Susumu Kitagawa of Kyoto University, Japan, left, and Richard Robson of the University of Melbourne are co-winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry along with UC Berkeley professor Omar Yaghi, on Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2025. (Kyodo News via AP) 

    The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, in its announcement, lauded the MOF breakthroughs for their ability to craft customizable materials with applications across the scientific field. Yaghi built on Robson and Kitagawa’s discoveries by creating a stable MOF that could be modified to have new properties: Imagine a porous filter programmed to selectively remove any atom or molecule at the command of a scientist.

    Since the trio’s discoveries, “chemists have built tens of thousands of different MOFs,” the academy wrote in its award announcement, noting that some may be key to solving humanity’s greatest challenges.

    “Metal–organic frameworks have enormous potential, bringing previously unforeseen opportunities for custom-made materials with new functions,” said Heiner Linke, Chair of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry.

    On Wednesday, Yaghi spoke with reporters via Zoom from Brussels, Belgium, to discuss the award. He described the moment he was exiting a plane in Frankfurt, Germany, when his phone buzzed with a call from Sweden. On the line was the secretary of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry with the news that he had won.

    “It was absolutely thrilling. You cannot prepare for a moment like that,” Yaghi said. “Since then, my phone hasn’t stopped ringing, buzzing, receiving emails, hundreds and hundreds of emails. I have no idea how I’m going to respond to all of them.”

    [ad_2]

    Chase Hunter

    Source link

  • What California’s Proposition 50 Means for Voters in 2025

    [ad_1]

    Recent polls indicate that California’s Proposition 50 is likely to pass. So what does that mean?

    What is it?

    California’s Proposition 50 is a redistricting measure intended to counter Texas’s Republican-favoring redistricting plan by creating more Democratic seats representing California in the House of Representatives. 

    On November 4, 2025, voters will have the chance to vote in favor of or in opposition to these new district lines designed to favor Democrats in the 2026, 2028, and 2030 elections, effectively overriding the map drawn by the state’s nonpartisan independent redistricting commission. This, a decision that would represent a strong departure from California’s commitment to independent redistricting as established during the Great Recession, to put the power in the hands of a citizen panel.

    What’s the impact?

    Though the vast majority of California’s representatives are Democrats, of the 9 current Republican seats, it is likely that 4 to 5 will be cut as a result of this redistricting. This map would heavily impact the likelihood of a reelection for current Republican officeholders Ken Calvert in the Inland Empire, Kevin Kiley in Greater Sacramento, David Valadao in the San Joaquin Valley, and Darrel Issa in the San Diego area. All of which are in districts that are likely to turn blue under this redistricting plan. 

    The Democratic Party sees this proposition as an immediate way to combat the actions of the Trump Administration that are harming Californians, stripping billions of dollars in federal research grants, drastically cutting funds for Medicaid, and separating families through immigration raids.

    This, however, does not mitigate concern for what could be to come in the future for redistricting in Republican led states. States such as Indiana, Florida, and Missouri are also considering redistricting plans to create more Republican seats in the House. 

    Indiana Governor Mike Braun, a Republican even mentioned in a local radio interview that if a state is not “getting involved as well as you can on the political side, you probably are not going to be the first call when it comes to the benefits”, demonstrating the fear that Republican states have about losing Presidential support as a result of staying out of redistricting initiatives.​

    Scroll to continue reading

    What do the polls say?

    Many polls have been taken regarding this proposition, though all have come up with slightly varying numbers, the consensus demonstrates that Californians are in favor of this proposition. UC Berkeley’s Institute for Governmental Studies found in August that 48 percent of people polled were in favor of the proposal, while 32 percent opposed it. Similarly, polls at Emerson College show that 51 percent of people were in support of the ballot measure while 34 percent were against.

    What are people saying?

    Governor of California Gavin Newsom says that California has no choice but to “fight fire with fire”  against what he claims to be Trump’s attempts to steal the 2026 midterm elections by redrawing state lines in favor of his party. 

    Former Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger combated this idea during an appearance he made at the University of Southern California last month by saying, “I hate to get political here, but this is not political. This is more about democracy,” and “If you vote yes on that, we go backwards.” Providing a direct critique of this proposition. 

    He even suggests that people need to lose the idea of having to “fight Trump,” claiming that it doesn’t make sense to “become him” in order to fight him, specifically noting that “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

    What does this mean for democracy?

    Schwarzenegger also fears that Proposition 50 is an attempt to try to “fight for democracy by getting rid of the democratic principles of California,” which Democratic Assembly member Mark Gonzales disagrees with, asserting that “We had to push back and create five seats of our own in order for us to make sure that we maintained democracy, especially here in California.” 

    [ad_2]

    Amaya Arnic

    Source link

  • Commentary: McCarthyism in a MAGA hat? Trump’s campus deal sounds familiar to her

    [ad_1]

    Bettina Aptheker was a 20-year-old sophomore at UC Berkeley when she climbed on top of a police car, barefoot so she wouldn’t damage it, and helped start the Free Speech Movement.

    “Power concedes nothing without a demand,” she told a crowd gathered in Sproul Plaza on that October Thursday in 1964, quoting abolitionist Frederick Douglass.

    She was blinded by the lights of the television cameras, but the students roared back approval, and “their energy just sort of went through my whole body,” she told me.

    Berkeley, as Aptheker describes it, was still caught in the tail end of the McCarthyism of the 1950s, when the 1st Amendment was almost felled by fear of government reprisals. Days earlier, administrators had passed rules that cracked down on political speech on campus.

    Aptheker and other students had planned a peaceful protest, only to have police roll up and arrest a graduate student named Jack Weinberg, a lanky guy with floppy hair and a mustache who had spent the summer working for the civil rights movement.

    Well-versed in those non-violent methods that were finally winning a bit of equality for Black Americans, hundreds of students sat down around the cruiser, remaining there more than 30 hours — while hecklers threw eggs and cigarette butts and police massed at the periphery — before the protesters successfully negotiated with the university to restore free speech on campus.

    History was made, and the Free Speech Movement born through the most American of traits — courage, passion and the invincibility of youth.

    “You can’t imagine something like that happening today,” Aptheker said of their success. “It was a different time period, but it feels very similar to the kind of repression that’s going on now.”

    Under the standards President Trump is pushing on the University of Southern California and eight other institutions, Aptheker would likely be arrested, using “lawful force if necessary,” as his 10-page “compact for academic excellence” requires. And the protest of the students would crushed by policies that would demand “civility” over freedom.

    If you somehow missed his latest attack on higher education, the Trump administration sent this compact to USC and eight other institutions Thursday, asking them to acquiesce to a list of demands in return for the carrot of front-of-the-line access to federal grants and benefits.

    While voluntary, the agreement threatens strongman-style, that institutions of higher education are “free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forgo federal benefits.”

    That’s the stick, the loss of federal funding. UCLA, Berkeley and California’s other public universities can tell you what it feels like to get thumped with it.

    “It’s intended to roll back any of the gains we’ve made,” Aptheker said of Trump’s policies. “No university should make any kind of deal with him.”

    The greatest problem with this nefarious pact is that much of it sounds on the surface to be reasonable, if not desirable. My favorite part: A demand that the sky-high tuition of signatory universities be frozen for five years.

    USC tuition currently comes in at close to $70,000 a year without housing. What normal parent thinks that sounds doable?

    Even the parts about protests sound, on the surface, no big deal.

    “Truth-seeking is a core function of institutions of higher education. Fulfilling this mission requires maintaining a vibrant marketplace of ideas where different views can be explored, debated, and challenged,” the document reads. “Signatories acknowledge that the freedom to debate requires conditions of civility.”

    Civility like taking your shoes off before climbing on a police car, right?

    As with all things Trump, though, the devil isn’t even in the details. It’s right there in black and white. The agreement requires civility, Trump style. That includes abolishing anything that could “delay or disrupt class instruction,” which is pretty much every protest, with or without footwear.

    Any university that signs on also would be agreeing to “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”

    So no more talking bad about far-right ideas, folks. That’s belittling to our racists, misogynists, Christian nationalists and conservative snowflakes of all persuasions. Take, for example, the increasingly popular conservative idea that slavery was actually good for Black people, or at least not that bad.

    Florida famously adopted educational standards in 2023 that argue slavery helped Black people learn useful skills. In another especially egregious example from the conservative educational nonprofit PragerU, a video for kids about Christoper Columbus has the explorer arguing, “Being taken as a slave is better than being killed, no? I don’t see the problem.”

    And of course, Trump is busy purging the Smithsonian of any hints that slavery was a stain on our history.

    Would it be violating Trump’s civility standards for a Black history professor to belittle such ideas as unserious and bonkers? What about debates in a feminism class that discuss Charlie Kirk’s comment that a good reason for women to go to college is to find a husband?

    Or what about an environmental science class that teaches accurately that climate change denial is unscientific, and that it was at best anti-intellectual when Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth recently referred to efforts to save the planet as “crap”? Would that be uncivil and belittling to conservatives?

    Belittle is a tiny word with big reach. I worry that entire academic departments could be felled by it, and certainly professors of certain persuasions.

    Aptheker, now 81, went on to become just the sort of professor Trump would likely loathe, teaching about freedom and inclusivity at UC Santa Cruz for decades. It was there that I first heard her lecture. I was a mixed-race kid who had been the target of more than one racial slur growing up, but I had never heard my personal experiences put into the larger context of being a person of color or a woman.

    Listening to Aptheker and professors like her, I learned not only how to see my life within the broader fabric of society, but learned how collective action has improved conditions for the most vulnerable among us, decade after decade.

    It is ultimately this knowledge that Trump wants to crush — that while power concedes nothing without a demand, collective demands work because they are a power of their own.

    Even more than silencing students or smashing protests, Trump’s compact seeks to purge this truth, and those who hold it, from the system. Signing this so-called deal isn’t just a betrayal of students, it’s a betrayal of the mission of every university worth its tuition, and a betrayal of the values that uphold our democracy.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom has rightfully threatened to withhold state funding from any California university that signs, writing on social media that the Golden State “will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, researchers, and surrender academic freedom.”

    Of course, some universities will sign it willingly. University of Texas called it an “honor” to be asked. There will always be those who collaborate in their own demise.

    But authoritarians live with the constant fear that people like Aptheker will teach a new generation their hard-won lessons, will open their minds to bold ideas and will question old realities that are not as unbreakable as they might appear. Universities, far from assuaging that constant fear, should fight to make it a reality.

    Anything less belittles the very point of a university education.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Newsom chides USC to ‘do the right thing’ for academic freedom and resist Trump compact

    [ad_1]

    Gov. Newsom on Friday waded further into the controversy surrounding a higher education compact President Trump has presented to nine universities including USC, chiding campus leadership to “do the right thing” and reject the offer.

    The compact, sent Wednesday to the University of Southern California and other campuses nationwide, has roiled higher education with its demands for rightward campus policy shifts in exchange for priority federal funding.

    On Thursday, Newsom swung back at the Trump proposal and threatened to cut “billions” of dollars in state funding to any California university that agrees to it.

    Newsom offered fiery remarks during a bill signing at UC Berkeley on Friday, escalating the stakes in the high-pressure decision confronting USC.

    “Do the right thing,” he said. “What’s the point of the system? What’s the point of the university? What’s the point of all of this if we don’t have academic freedom? … It’s not a choice, and the fact that I felt I needed to even send that message is rather shocking, because some people think it is.”

    Newsom scoffed at the notion that USC, a private institution, even has to deliberate over the Trump offer — calling it a “false choice.”

    The compact’s conservative goals

    The White House offer to USC and a small group of prominent universities — among them the University of Arizona, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Texas and Brown University — calls on campuses to follow Trump’s views on admissions, diversity and free speech, among other areas. In exchange, they would get more favorable access to federal research grants and additional funding, in addition to other benefits.

    Universities would also have to accept the government’s definition of gender and would not be allowed to recognize transgender people’s gender identities. Foreign student enrollment would be restricted. In regards to 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.

    In a campus letter Friday, USC interim President Beong-Soo Kim said the White House offer “covers a number of issues that I believe are important to study and discuss.”

    “I have already heard from several members of our community, and in the weeks ahead, I will be consulting with the Board of Trustees; the deans and leadership team; and members of the Academic Senate, the Academic Freedom Task Force, the President’s Faculty Advisory Committee, and other stakeholder groups to hear their wide-ranging perspectives,” Kim said. “These conversations can take time, but they are essential to building trust and community.”

    He said it was his responsibility to “advance USC’s mission and uphold our core values.”

    Speaking at the Berkeley event, Newsom said USC is among California’s “great universities” that are “all in this together” as campuses face an uncertain and rocky future amid the Trump presidency.

    A day earlier the governor threatened to withhold Cal Grants, the state’s largest financial aid program to California public and private universities that sign onto Trump’s deal. The grants are awarded based on income, and students become eligible through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid or California Dream Act Application.

    In 2024-25, $2.5 billion in Cal Grants were doled out statewide. USC received Cal Grants worth about $28 million during that academic year.

    UC negotiations ongoing

    In response to a question about the proposal to USC and whether Newsom would issue the same threat of removing state funding to UCLA — the subject of ongoing negotiations over a sprawling U.S. Department of Justice antisemitism investigation — the governor said he was “not concerned” about the UC system.

    “I’m not concerned about their capacity to organize a strategy that’s thoughtful and deliberative that maintains our values … without resorting to the kind of expressed concerns that I have about the university in question that was on that list,” Newsom said.

    As UCLA continues to negotiate with the Trump administration, Newsom said he has confidence in the university system, whose leaders have been working “collaboratively for weeks” to come to a resolution.

    The governor’s more tempered remarks were a shift from his comments in August and September, when he said UC should “sue” Trump and should not “bend the knee,” a reference to his belief that the deals made by Brown and Columbia universities with the White House were bad moves that empowered the government to target more campuses.

    “Governor Newsom, [UC] President [James B.] Milliken and the board of regents are fully aligned in protecting the values, integrity and unparalleled quality of the University of California system,” UC Board of Regents Chair Janet Reilly said Friday in a statement to The Times following Newsom’s comments.

    In a Friday letter, Milliken said the Trump compact was also a subject of talks among system leaders.

    “Just within the last few days, the administration has announced a plan to impose a myriad of new requirements on universities seeking federal funding, which we will discuss soon with faculty leadership,” said Milliken, without elaborating on the matter.

    The Trump proposal has not been sent to UC. A White House official said the initial campuses on its list were the first group in potentially many more colleges to receive the terms.

    After the Justice Department found in July that UCLA violated Jewish students’ rights amid its response to spring 2024 pro-Palestinian demonstrations, the Trump administration sought a nearly $1.2-billion penalty from the school. The government is also seeking changes over admissions, foreign student enrollment, diversity programs and other GOP priorities in higher education.

    While praising UC’s handling of federal negotiations, Newsom was less supportive of recent actions by UC Berkeley to release the personal information of 160 employees to Department of Education as part of a federal investigation into alleged campus antisemitism.

    UC officials said they strive to protect employee privacy and were required to share information with the department because it enforces civil rights law on campuses. Faculty have criticized the move, with some likening it to anti-free speech practices during the McCarthy era.

    Newsom said he “requested an independent review” of the data release in order to “make a judgment as to whether or not it was appropriate, whether or not it was consistent with past practices or whether or not it should be adjusted in terms of policy.”

    USC ‘between a rock and a hard place’

    Rick Hess, an education analyst with the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said Newsom’s remarks “seemed not inappropriate.”

    “If a [Kamala] Harris administration had tried something like this, I think Republican governors would be equally livid,” said Hess, director of the institute’s education policy studies.

    “USC is between a rock and a hard place,” Hess added. “If they say no, what does any of this mean? What does it mean to not be prioritized for federal research funds? Does that mean the tap will be shut off? On the other hand, once you’ve signed … will the administration abide by the promises it has made? Part of the problem is, it is not entirely clear what it means to say yes and what it means to say no.”

    Newsom blasted institutions that have already “sold out” by signing Trump’s compact. The University of Texas has suggested it could agree to the terms. 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 Thursday statement from Kevin Eltife, chair of the board of regents.

    “In this state, our state of mind must be resolute,” said Newsom. “I don’t mean to put pressure on people. I need to put pressure on this moment and pressure test where we are in U.S. history, not just California history. And so forgive me for being so firm. This is it. We are losing this country.”

    [ad_2]

    Daniel Miller, Melody Gutierrez, Jaweed Kaleem

    Source link

  • Hate crime investigation at UC Berkeley

    [ad_1]

    UC Berkeley police are investigating a suspected hate crime after they say at least one person was targeted and assaulted because of their race.

    University police said the victims were walking Friday in the area of Telegraph Ave and Bancroft Way when someone started yelling racial slurs and then fired at them with what was likely a BB gun. Police called it an aggravated assault hate crime.

    Police are still looking for the person responsible.

    The university’s warning system alerted students of the crime on Tuesday, the same day it was reported.

    NBC Bay Area’s Velena Jones has more in the video report above.

    [ad_2]

    Velena Jones

    Source link

  • California study: Wildfire defensible space, home hardening double number of homes saved

    [ad_1]

    Some of California’s most destructive wildfires have changed the way homeowners think about their own space.  

    Marin County residents Anita Brock and her husband Steve Kaplan are among them. They live on a steep hill in Larkspur, in a heavily wooded area with tight, windy roads. They’ve cleared space and shrubs around their homes and replaced potential fuel loads with gravel. 

    “As you can see, I mean this type of area here, if embers do land here, you know they’re not going to catch a light or any dead leaves or anything like that,” Brock said. 

    “We realized that we’re here and we’re not immune to those same dangers,” Kaplan said. 

    A new study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, is providing some concrete data about the impacts of preparing one’s home to withstand a wildfire, particularly in the wildland-urban interface in California. 

    The first-of-its-kind study combined wildfire simulation tools with Cal Fire’s damage inspection data from five of the state’s most destructive fires before 2022. The models showed that home hardening, such as the use of fire-resistant materials on the roof, walls and decks, and increasing the amount of defensible space together can double the number of homes and other structures that survive a blaze. 

    All that mitigation work is the central focus of the study from the UC Berkeley Fire Research Lab. The study cited that between 2013 and 2018, California wildfires damaged or destroyed approximately 47,000 structures and killed 189 people.

    “All of the big fires we’ve had in California have really raised awareness about the risks involved,” said Brock. “We do everything that we can to mitigate the risks that are all around us.”

    The study concludes that simply clearing a 5-foot perimeter around homes, the subject of California’s controversial proposed Zone 0 regulations, can reduce structure loss by 17%.

    “It’s finally putting some quantitative data to show that the investments we’re making are actually going to have a payout,” said study co-author Michael Gollner.  

    The study also emphasizes the need for a community-wide mitigation strategy.  

    “We also see a really strong signal in what you do around the house, so that Zone Zero and that five feet was surprisingly a pretty strong signal, and it makes sense,” said Gollner. 

    For Brock and Kaplan, who had once lost their home insurance, part of this ongoing effort is to keep their coverage. 

    “All of the efforts to mitigate, I think or not mitigate, are going to be directly related to the future of being able to insure homes,” said Kaplan. 

    A few small steps by homeowners living in a California reality, and the threat of larger and more destructive wildfires. 

    “I do think that maintaining defensible space is one of the best ways that you can keep yourself and your family and your neighbors safe,” said Brock. “I absolutely believe it will make a difference.”

    The study found that the distance between buildings was the most influential factor in predicting loss. Exterior siding and year built were the next strongest predictors.

    Home hardening alone raised survival to 25%. Hardening and clearing defensible space closest to the home up to 5 feet improved survivability to 40%.

    Fire officials say there are grants and help available for cash-strapped homeowners to take advantage of through local FireSafe Councils and FireWise community groups. 

    Kenny Choi

    When Kenny Choi jumped into the backseat, he never thought he would be introducing his ride share driver to National Public Radio. The hour-long ride to the airport turned into a conversation that included politics, the economic divide, and the cultural differences between the East Coast and the West Coast.

    [ad_2]

    Kenny Choi

    Source link

  • Cal rowing team faces setback after theft of vital training equipment

    [ad_1]




































    Cal rowing team faces setback after thieves steal critical training tool



    Cal rowing team faces setback after thieves steal critical training tool

    02:00

    With rowing season set to begin next week, student-athletes from Cal are trying to recover from a setback over the summer. A critical training tool was stolen from the Oakland Estuary.

    The Lightweight Rowing Club has been producing athletes for roughly 50 years and has represented UC Berkeley in competitions around the world. The team has high hopes for another successful season but thieves took off with one of their valuable training tools.

    “It was a little disheartening,” said rower Rohan Aggarwal. “A little disheartening.”

    It’s always gutting we try to work hard and be the best that we can but you have something like this happen and it just sets you back,” added rower Sami Houssaini.

    Thieves made two trips to steal the launch motor, a critical tool during training sessions.

    “First it was the motor,” said Aggarwal. “Then a couple of weeks later, the actual tin body of our launch was stolen as well.”

    Rohan and Sami say this is not the first time the team has been impacted by crime. The launch motor, though, serves a dual purpose on the water.

    “Not only is it for athletes’ safety in case of accidents on the water, it can be used to ferry athletes from a rowing boat to shore very quickly in case of an emergency,” said Aggarwal. “It’s also useful for coaches. So they can get up close to athletes, provide feedback in our rowing.”

    Since the incident, the team started an online fundraiser to replace the equipment. For a program that placed 1st in both the men’s novice lightweight and women’s varsity pair last season, at the Western Intercollegiate Regional Championship, athletes say they’re not going to let this setback impact their championship hopes this year.

    “We’ve had to be scrappy at times, and I think we’re just going to have to do it at the start of the season,” said Aggarwal. “We’ll find a way to make it work.”

    [ad_2]

    Andrea Nakano

    Source link

  • Shots fired near UC Berkeley, police say

    Shots fired near UC Berkeley, police say

    [ad_1]

    Police are investigating reports of gunfire near UC Berkeley early Saturday morning.

    The university’s WarnMe alert updated that all scenes have been secured.

    Haste/Telegraph, 2299 Bancroft Way, 2223 Fulton Ave, and 2200 University Ave were secure after shots were fired past midnight, Saturday, according to the alert sent out at 2:31 a.m.

    There were no reported injuries at any of the scenes, authorities said.

    Anyone with information is asked to contact Berkeley Police at (510) 981-5900 and refer to case #24- 50120.

    [ad_2]

    Bay City News

    Source link

  • Cal student from Livermore makes $100K winning field goal wearing Vans

    Cal student from Livermore makes $100K winning field goal wearing Vans

    [ad_1]

    A college student who grew up in Livermore stunned the sporting world Saturday as he won a $100,000 field goal challenge as part of ESPN’s “College GameDay” festivities at the University of California, Berkeley.

    Many fans at the Cal-Miami football game recognized Daniel Villaseñor. They rushed up to him to praise him and take selfies.

    The UC Berkeley Sophomore Civil Engineering Major arrived at campus after 11 p.m. Friday night for a chance to stand in “the pit” for ESPN’s College GameDay on campus Saturday morning. This was the first time the program was broadcast from the Cal Campus.

    “So I thought I would bring my most comfortable shoes, my Vans,” said Villaseñor who was sporting laceless, checkered Vans.

    Villaseñor entered into a raffle to kick a field goal for $75,000 in prize money. To his shock, he was selected.

    Villaseñor said he plays soccer but has only kicked football a couple of times before.

    He lined up for the kick in his Vans but kicked the ball too far to the right.

    Then, the hosts gave Villaseñor a second chance, this time upping the prize money offer to $100,000. Host Pat McAffee also offered to increase the total amount he would donate for Hurricane Helene relief efforts to $600,000 if Villaseñor could make the field goal.

    On his second attempt at the kick, Villaseñor recalls, “I re-did my steps, and I was super locked in and focused, and I was able to make it.”

    On television, Villaseñor was captured joyfully celebrating the successful kick.

    “I was crazy excited; I was jumping up and down screaming; something like that has never happened to me before,” he said.

    Still wearing his Vans, Villaseñor joined his family, who came out from Livermore to watch the big game against Miami. Villaseñor grew up in Livermore and is a graduate of Livermore High School.

    He said he hadn’t decided yet what to do with the prize money.

    “I have no idea, a lot of fast food probably, probably some tuition and helping out with my family,” he said.

    Villaseñor said he is thrilled to experience this memory while supporting the team he has cheered on since childhood.

    [ad_2]

    Alyssa Goard

    Source link

  • Arrested UC Berkeley protesters face burglary, vandalism and conspiracy charges

    Arrested UC Berkeley protesters face burglary, vandalism and conspiracy charges

    [ad_1]

    The 12 pro-Palestinian protesters who were forcibly removed from a vacant UC Berkeley building Thursday night were arrested on suspicion of burglary, vandalism and conspiracy, according to a university spokesperson. 

    The details regarding the charges the protesters face were revealed Friday in an email from UC Berkeley assistant vice chancellor Dan Mogulof. The email additionally alleged that some of the protesters used crowbars to assault officers and many resisted arrest, which could lead to additional charges being sought in the future.

    “The suspects blocked the north entrance to Anna Head with plywood and shields; they violently resisted arrest, using crowbars to hit officers and using their hands to resist arrest,” Mogulof said. 

    On Wednesday, the group took over the Anna Head building on Haste Street between Telegraph Avenue and Bowditch Street to protest Israel’s ongoing invasion of the Gaza Strip, which was launched in response to a large-scale terrorist attack in October 2023.

    School officials said that the group had sticks, pry bars and bolt cutters and that they cut fences, broke windows and spray-painted walls.

    The effort to oust the protesters included officers from more than 20 different agencies, including UC Berkeley, Oakland, Alameda and San Mateo counties, Pacifica and San Francisco.  

    The Anna Head building has sat unused and boarded up since a fire in 2022.

    A spokesperson for the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office didn’t immediately respond to a request for information on possible charges against the protesters.

    The Anna Head occupation came just two days after the pro-Palestinian encampment in front of UC Berkeley’s Sproul Hall disbanded. That encampment dispersed partially to head to a protest in Merced at a University of California Board of Regents meeting scheduled for Wednesday, and partially in response to UC Berkeley’s promise to examine investments in Israel in recent negotiations. 

    Pro-Palestinian protesters occupied the grassy area around Sproul Plaza on UC Berkeley’s campus for 22 days to pressure the university to divest from Israel, before Chancellor Carol Christ released a statement which promised to examine UC Berkeley’s ties to the Israeli government and declared her support for a ceasefire. Her statement noted that the Regents of the University of California control investments. 

    [ad_2]

    CBS San Francisco

    Source link

  • Sonoma State president put on leave for ‘insubordination’ for supporting Israel academic boycott, divestment

    Sonoma State president put on leave for ‘insubordination’ for supporting Israel academic boycott, divestment

    [ad_1]

    The president of Sonoma State University was placed on leave Wednesday, a day after he released a controversial campuswide message on the Israel-Hamas war that said the university would pursue “divestment strategies” and endorsed an academic boycott of Israeli universities.

    California State University Chancellor Mildred García announced the decision in a statement posted to the CSU website, saying that Sonoma State President Mike Lee was taken off the job for his “insubordination” in making the statement without “appropriate approvals.”

    Pro-Palestinian student encampment protesters celebrated when Lee released a letter to the roughly 6,000-student member Rohnert Park campus on Tuesday that met enough of their requests for activists to agree to dismantle their camp by Wednesday evening.

    “SSU Demands Met!” said a post on the SSU Students for Justice in Palestine Instagram with the caption “brick by brick, wall by wall” that showed screenshots of Lee’s letter.

    In his letter, Lee promised to pursue “divestment strategies that include seeking ethical alternatives” in consultation with pro-Palestinian activists and said he supported an academic boycott of Israel.

    “SSU will not pursue or engage in any study abroad programs, faculty exchanges, or other formal collaborations that are sponsored by, or represent, the Israeli state academic and research institutions,” Lee’s Tuesday letter said.

    Lee’s statement stood out. While other universities have recently said they will look into divesting from weapons companies, including UC Berkeley and UC Riverside, nearly all in the U.S. have rejected calls to target Israel specifically or to boycott formal exchange or research partnerships with Israeli universities.

    In rejecting such calls, the universities have cited their support of academic freedom and anti-discrimination policies. Some have also noted that a 2016 state law signed by then Gov. Jerry Brown banned giving state grants or contracts worth more than $100,000 to state universities that targeted Israel in endorsing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

    Lee’s statement immediately drew criticism from Jewish students, parents and community groups.

    Speaking at a Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California conference in Sacramento on Wednesday, California Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, who serves on the CSU Board of Trustees, slammed campuses for moving forward with agreements to quell protests.

    “Each campus is handling these situations in their own way with inconsistencies and frankly, sometimes coming up with agreements that they really don’t have the authority to come up with,” said Kounalakis, who spoke before Lee was put on leave.

    Kounalakis, a Democrat, said campuses were “woefully unprepared” for the recent protests.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom, who made a video appearance at the same Wednesday event to promote his plan to counter antisemitism, said last week that he did “not support divestment.”

    Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino) and Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), co-chairs of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, commended García‘s decision, saying in a statement that Lee’s support of an academic boycott “was totally unacceptable and evidence that former President Lee is unfit to lead one of our great state institutions. We look forward to working with Chancellor García and the CSU Trustees to pursue a different path that will promote learning, respectful dialogue, mutual respect, inclusivity, and peace.”

    In her letter announcing that Lee would step aside, García said she was “deeply concerned” about his words.

    “Our role as educators is to support and uplift all members of the California State University. I want to acknowledge how deeply concerned I am about the impact the statement has had on the Sonoma State community, and how challenging and painful it will be for many of our students and community members to see and read,” García said. “The heart and mission of the CSU is to create an inclusive and welcoming place for everyone we serve, not to marginalize one community over another.”

    In his own letter on his departure, Lee apologized, saying he had “marginalized other members of our student population” and that “I realize the harm that this has caused, and I take full ownership of it. I deeply regret the unintended consequences of my actions.”

    “I want to be clear: The message was drafted and sent without the approval of, or consultation with, the Chancellor or other system leaders. The points outlined in the message were mine alone, and do not represent the views of my colleagues or the CSU,” Lee wrote.

    It was unclear how long Lee will be out. He has been on the job for 20 months, about half the time as interim president.

    In an interview with The Times, kinesiology professor Lauren Morimoto said she supported Lee.

    “As of now, the Academic Senate has not made a statement about Mike Lee’s announcement. However, I’m meeting with the Board of the Asian Pacific Islander American Faculty and Staff Association and we stand in solidarity with Mike Lee and the student protesters…,” said Morimoto, the former chair of the academic senate. “I will ask to be added to tomorrow’s agenda to present a resolution of support for Mike Lee and the student protesters and the demands they were able to negotiate with the university.”

    Staff writers Colleen Shalby and Mackenzie Mays contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Jaweed Kaleem

    Source link

  • Is higher education worth the cost? New study says it depends on the school

    Is higher education worth the cost? New study says it depends on the school

    [ad_1]

    The value of a college degree largely depends on where you go, a new HEA Group study found.

    And as college tuition continues to increase – more than 30% in the next five years for Cal State University – some are wondering if higher education is worth the investment.

    Eloy Ortiz Oakley, president and CEO of College Futures Foundation, set out to answer that question when he commissioned the HEA Group to analyze how long it would take low and moderate income students to recoup the costs of attending colleges — from four-year institutions and community colleges to trade schools.

    “We believe that we are in a crisis moment, particularly when it comes to higher education opportunities,” Oakley said. “We all know that the cost of attendance continues to rise. The public is asking questions about the value of a degree. There are a lot of conversations about whether or not your college degree still has the same value that it once promised.”

    Oakley, who is the former chancellor of the California Community Colleges, said higher education is one of the largest investments that students and their families will make in their lifetime, so they should see a return on that investment.

    The “Golden Opportunities” study by HEA uses data from the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard to determine how long it takes 731,000 low and moderate income students at 292 higher ed institutions in the state to recoup their cost of attendance. Students whose family income is less than $75,000 a year are defined as low and moderate income.

    The study calculated the net annual cost of attendance – books, housing, transportation and tuition – after all scholarships and grants are awarded. Then, HEA multiplied that figure by the number of years it would take a student to receive their credential: four years for a bachelor’s, two years for an associate’s and one year for a certificate.

    HEA’s study measured the median salary of former students after 10 years of enrolling at each school and compared it to the salary of a high school graduate with no college experience – $26,073. That salary was then used to calculate how long it would take a student to pay down the cost of earning their degree.

    The HEA Group found that generally, students who received associate’s degrees were able to recoup their educational costs quicker than students who received bachelor’s degrees or certificates.

    According to the study, San Jose State University costs $47,769 for a low/moderate income student to attend. Graduates made $45,924 more annually than a student with no college experience. Under that scenario, the former student would recoup their costs of attendance in one year.

    A student at De Anza Community College in Cupertino paid $9,117 to attend, and would earn $30,766 more on average than a high school grad without a college degree. In that case, the report found, the former student could get back their cost of attendance in less than six months.

    But a student who attended Menlo College in Atherton would have to spend nearly four years earning a salary of $56,512 – barely $30,000 more than a high school graduate without a college degree – before they could recoup the $115,852 it cost to attend the private school.

    Michael Itzkowitz, founder and president of the HEA Group, said the analysis aimed to get a bird’s eye view on what kind of economic outcomes colleges and universities are providing students.

    “The number one reason why students attend higher education today…is for greater employability and to obtain a financially secure future,” Itzkowitz said. “The number one reason why students don’t attend college is because of cost.”

    Itzkowitz said the survey found that most higher ed institutions in California (79%) allowed for low and moderate income students to regain the cost of attendance in five years or less, and nearly a third allowed students to recuperate their costs in under a year.

    But 24 schools showed that students received no economic benefit from enrolling in college and earned even less than a typical high school graduate. Many of those schools were cosmetology schools or technical colleges.

    “I’d argue that they may actually be worse off financially after they attend, being that they’re earning so little and they paid so much to earn their (credential),” Itzkowitz said.

    [ad_2]

    Molly Gibbs

    Source link

  • Violent clashes break out at UCLA after officials declare pro-Palestinian encampment ‘unlawful’

    Violent clashes break out at UCLA after officials declare pro-Palestinian encampment ‘unlawful’

    [ad_1]

    Clashes broke out early Wednesday at the pro-Palestinian encampment at UCLA, hours after the university declared that the camp “is unlawful and violates university policy” and warned that students who did not leave would face possible suspension or expulsion.

    Just before midnight, a large group of counter-demonstrators, wearing black outfits and white masks, arrived on campus and tried to tear down the barricades surrounding the encampment. Campers, some holding lumber, rallied to defend the encampment’s perimeter.

    Videos showed fireworks being set off and at least one being thrown into the camp.

    The violence is the worst on campus since counter-protesters, who support Israel, set up a dueling area near where the Gaza war protesters were camping.

    After midnight, some tried to get into the camp and the pro-Palestinian side used pepper spray to defend themselves.

    Some security guards could be seen observing the clashes but did not move in to stop them. UCLA said police have been called.

    “Horrific acts of violence occurred at the encampment tonight and we immediately called law enforcement for mutual aid support. The fire department and medical personnel are on the scene. We are sickened by this senseless violence and it must end,” Mary Osako, vice chancellor for UCLA Strategic Communications said in a statement.

    Mayor Karen Bass released a statement saying that “LAPD is responding immediately” to UCLA’s request for support.

    Officer Jorge Estrada confirmed that LAPD officers were on their way to the campus after UCLA police requested assistance.

    Some on campus said they were stunned no officials stepped in to stop the clashes. Ananya Roy, a professor of urban planning, social welfare and geography, condemned UCLA’s lack of response to the counter-protestors.

    “It gives people impunity to come to our campus as a rampaging mob,” she said early Wednesday. “The word is out they can do this repeatedly and get away with it. I am ashamed of my university.”

    One representative of the camp said counter-demonstrators repeatedly pushed over the barricades that outline the boundaries of the encampment, and some campers said they were hit by a substance they thought was pepper spray. Some people in the camp were being treated for eye irritation.

    The Westwood campus became the first in the University of California system to move against an encampment. Others have been set up at UC campuses at Berkeley, Riverside and Irvine along with colleges and universities across the nation. In the biggest wave of campus protests since the 1960s, scores of students, faculty members and staffers are demanding an end to Israel’s actions in Gaza and divestment from firms that sell weapons or services to the country.

    UC has generally taken a lighter touch in handling protests than USC, Columbia and other campuses that have called in police, who have arrested hundreds of students.

    The crackdown came on the same day that the House committee investigating antisemitism announced UCLA Chancellor Gene Block would appear to testify about his campus actions to stop bias and harassment against Jewish students. The May 23 hearing is also set to include the presidents of Yale and the University of Michigan. The hearings have derailed the careers of the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard. Block has already announced he is stepping down as chancellor on July 31.

    In a statement Tuesday, UC President Michael V. Drake said he “fully” supported UCLA’s action. UC must be “as flexible as it can” in matters of free speech, he said, but must act in cases where student learning and expression are blocked, university functions disrupted and safety threatened.

    “The University of California campuses will work with students, faculty and staff to make space available and do all we can to protect these protests and demonstrations,” he said. “But disruptive unlawful protests that violate the rights of our fellow citizens are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated.”

    He did not specify what behavior at UCLA he found unacceptable.

    On Friday, the UC Board of Regents has scheduled a closed-door meeting to discuss the student protests.

    UC guidance — developed after widespread furor involving a 2011 incident at UC Davis, where police pepper-sprayed students who were peacefully protesting social and economic inequality during the Occupy movement — has led campuses to use a flexible approach in allowing protests as long as they are peaceful and don’t impede campus operations, learning or teaching. Police action should be a last resort, the guidance says.

    But Block said Tuesday that, while many demonstrators have been peaceful, others have used tactics that have “frankly been shocking and shameful.”

    “We have seen instances of violence completely at odds with our values as an institution dedicated to respect and mutual understanding,” Block said in a message to the campus community. “In other cases, students on their way to class have been physically blocked from accessing parts of the campus.

    “UCLA supports peaceful protest, but not activism that harms our ability to carry out our academic mission and makes people in our community feel bullied, threatened and afraid,” he wrote. He added that the incidents had put many on campus, “especially our Jewish students,” in a state of anxiety and fear.

    High levels of fear also have been reported by pro-Palestinian students, which Block did not mention — an omission that outraged some campus members.

    “It is quite shocking and demoralizing that the chancellor notes only the antisemitism faced by Jewish students when in fact there has been a significant number of incidents of racism and violence against Palestinians, Muslims and in fact anyone considered a supporter of Palestinian rights,” said Sherene Razack, a professor of gender studies.

    The “Palestinian Solidarity Encampment,” which was set up Thursday, said in a statement that “Zionist aggressors,” most of them not UCLA students, had been “incessantly verbally and physically harassing us, violently trying to storm the camp, and threatening us with weapons.” But campus security did nothing to protect them, the statement said.

    The group decried UCLA’s move to end the encampment as a “cowardly intimidation tactic” and a “continuation of a long history of attempts to shut down student activism and silence pro-Palestinian voices.”

    Dan Gold, executive director of Hillel at UCLA, supported the university’s action, saying Jewish students have been bullied, harassed and intimidated around the encampment — including at least 10 who said they were denied access to nearby walkways after encampment monitors asked them if they were Zionists. A Star of David with the words “step here” was drawn in the area, he said.

    “This encampment violates a long list of university policies, and the result of not enforcing these rules that every other student and student group follows to a T is chaos and unrest — and worse, it allows for even more intense forms of hate to persist and grow,” Gold said.

    Block said the campus was aiming to keep all sides safe by “significantly” increasing the security presence with more law enforcement officers, safety personnel and student affairs staff. Law enforcement is investigating recent acts of violence, and barriers that demonstrators used to block access to buildings have been removed, Block said. Students involved could face suspension or expulsion.

    UCLA added that it “encouraged” students to use established university procedures to find appropriate locations to gather and protest.

    [ad_2]

    Teresa Watanabe, Safi Nazzal

    Source link

  • UC Berkeley’s STAR Team and Valworx Announce Partnership for Intercollegiate Rocket Engineering Competition

    UC Berkeley’s STAR Team and Valworx Announce Partnership for Intercollegiate Rocket Engineering Competition

    [ad_1]


    CORNELIUS, N.C., April 30, 2024 (Newswire.com)
    –
    Valworx, Inc, a leading supplier of actuated valves and controls, has partnered with UC Berkeley’s Space Technology and Rocketry (STAR) team to provide control valves for a liquid fueled rocket engine. The engine, currently in development, is STAR’s third liquid engine and is slated to compete in the ESRA Spaceport America Cup. The team plans to add several improvements to the overall rocket including control valves with the goal of achieving their targeted apogee more accurately.

    “Valworx is excited to play a part in supporting the next generation of aerospace leaders and we wish the STAR team much success,” said Kurt Naas, President of Valworx.

    “STAR is excited to continue forward with the development of our next generation of Liquid Vehicles backed by support from our new friends at Valworx,” said Justin Gonzalez, Media Lead of STAR.

    About the STAR Rocketry team at UC Berkeley:

    STAR is UC Berkeley’s premier competition rocketry team, boasting the longest and most successful launch history on campus, with a total of nine complete vehicles and two liquid vehicles engineered over its eight-year lifetime. These vehicles are completely student-designed and tested, from in-house avionics to liquid-fuel propulsion as well as an array of payloads ranging from microbial power cells to muon detectors and rocket-deployed aircrafts. 

    For more information, visit us at https://stars.studentorg.berkeley.edu/.

    About Valworx:

    Established in 1991, Valworx is a leading supplier of actuated valves and controls in stainless, brass, PVC, and sanitary ball and butterfly valves. They offer free shipping on orders over $99, free lifetime technical support, extensive online documentation and a generous return policy. All products are backed by a comprehensive one-year warranty.

    Valworx-brand products are known, trusted and preferred by tens of thousands of users worldwide, meeting their customers’ expectations for price, delivery, and performance.

    For more information visit us at http://www.valworx.com.

    Source: Valworx, Inc.

    [ad_2]

    Source link