UC Board of Regents, March 2017    

That is the question.

This is the answer: Never.  

Or not at least until the campuses fight and change current Office of the President (UCOP) budget ideology and practice. They have never done that.  Not yet.  

I’m going to compare UCOP’s January state budget show with their offstage borrowing.  State funding yields little, while the debt yields a lot.  

I’ll keep my eye on two major implications for the campuses. The first is a lock-in of structural deficits with continuing cuts to the educational core--to both teaching and research.  

Selling The Catalyst, UCSB on April 12, 2014   

2025 saw a shift in the hard right’s measure for the success of its decades-long attacks on universities: it moved from discrediting to subjugating the university system. It used decades-old methods in which culture wars and budget wars work together. These were now yoked under Trump II with federal coercion campaigns that extorted changes in core institutional policy through the unlawful withholding of federal funds.

 

University boards and presidents have not formulated common aims much less a joint strategy to fight the most powerful attack in higher education’s modern history, one already more destructive than McCarthyism. They have followed the mantra of corporate America: shut up, suck up, and try not to stand up.  I’ve noted that all the fighting has come from faculty groups and some professional associations.

 

 

Indiana University on November 6, 2025   

Critiquing universities is one thing and rebuilding them is another. Getting from the first to the second was a constant topic at the four U.S. universities where I spoke over the course of a few weeks this past month.

I visited the University of Pennsylvania, UCLA, the University of Minnesota Twin Cities, and Indiana University Bloomington. Warm thanks to my hosts and audiences in all those places, who were generous in every way. I learned enormously from comments and various extensive discussions.

 

At each university, bad things were being done to faculty and their programs. In each place, faculty were doing things back.  We talked non-stop about whether this doing-back was working and what faculty members could and should do next.

 

Tenure-track faculty are in an odd position. They are neither principals nor agents: they lack corporate power in universities. They lack legal power of the kind possessed by governing boards.  They have lost the relationship power of the old collegiality that tenure-track faculty assumed. They’re now in a world that’s familiar to non-tenure track faculty and graduate students. What next?

 

Most of those I spoke with saw the first job as defense against outside attacks. And in fact, faculty legal defense has been working well. At UCLA, joint faculty and union lawsuits have now led to a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump Administration’s pursuit of a $1.2 billion fine against UCLA that aims to extort an agreement like that the Administration imposed on Columbia University (Jaweed Kaleem has an overview). Over the summer, a group of UC faculty sued Trump’s National Institutes for Health to restore blocked research funding. This lawsuit also succeeded at getting a temporary injunction.

 

It’s worth noting that the UC Board of Regents and the Office of the President have accepted if not condoned the Trump Administration’s unlawful coercion by failing to dispute it. Faculty groups have had to fill a leadership vacuum.  Incredibly, the UCLA Faculty Association and the Council of University of California Faculty Associations (CUCFA) had to sue their own Board of Regents to obtain the text of the Trump demands to which they were thinking of committing the University: this suit was also successful.  (UC then asked the California Supreme Court to overturn the lower court ruling, which they declined to do.)  UC senior managers have neither defended the University in court against unlawful attacks nor acknowledged any obligation to collaborate with the UC community. It’s remarkable that their main legal actions have been taken against their own employees.

 

During the UCLA conference that had brought me to campus, I met an author of one of two major resolutions submitted to the November meeting of the UCLA Legislative Assembly.  The “Resolution on Financial Transparency and the Restoration of Shared Governance in Budget Planning” recites chapter and verse of the obligations that managers have to work with faculty bodies on planning and budget.  It calls for the belated release of comprehensive financial statements for fiscal years 2024–25 and 2025–26, including “statements of revenues, expenditures, reserves, and a clear definition and accounting of the reported deficit.” It goes on to demand four modes of data sharing and communication that include “detailed analyses and forward projections” in nine separate categories.  The Resolution itself tells a story of breached collaboration that took some real work to put together.

 

Take a look--it is impressively strong and complete.  People often cite the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as having shifted state legislatures to the right by circulating model policies that members can cut and paste into bills for their state. Faculty Senates could treat this Resolution as a model policy and adapt it for their campus. 

 

 **UPDATE

The UCLA Academic Senate has announced the results of the votes on these Resolutions: 

Resolution on Financial Transparency and the Restoration of Shared Governance in Budget Planning
 
  Legislative Assembly members voted via the Academic Senate Data Management System on the Resolution on Financial Transparency and the Restoration of Shared Governance in Budget Planning. The Legislative Assembly received a total of 116 votes cast: 115 Approve, 1 Oppose. This Resolution required a majority of votes cast by present members to be approved. [AIPSC (2nd ed.) 5.1]. A majority of votes cast (99%) were to Approve this Resolution.

 

Resolution on Information Technology Accountability, Transparency, and Shared Governance
 
  Legislative Assembly members voted via the Academic Senate Data Management System on the Resolution on Information Technology Accountability, Transparency, and Shared Governance. The Legislative Assembly received a total of 106 votes cast: 104 Approve, 2 Oppose. This Resolution required a majority of votes cast by present members to be approved. [AIPSC (2nd ed.) 5.1]. A majority of votes cast (98%) were to Approve this Resolution

 

These are the strongest large-group Senate votes I have ever seen.  It's as though the repression isn't working anymore, and, to quote Avery Gordon, "when the repression isn't working anymore, the trouble that results demands re-narrativization."

 

 ** END UPDATE

 

For the most part, the faculty stories were painful to hear. They were mainly about having to react to the unilateral actions of more powerful people. The people who had power over the university mainly didn’t like the university. Their views ranged from indifferent to openly hostile. The powerful people decided actions that damaged faculty without working with them in advance: in many cases damage seemed like the aim of the action. The faculty got the job of accepting the decisions and then twisting them into place.  

 

I saw good stories interrupted.  There were great early chapters.  Chapter 1: the administration commits an offense against education or Thought Itself.  Chapter 2. Faculty organize and strike back!  Chapter 3: the governing board responds by curtailing faculty and student rights. That’s terrible!  I can’t wait to see what happens in Chapter 4! 

 

But what if there is no Chapter 4?

 

I am not sure how to talk about this. I don’t mean it as a criticism of the many university faculty members working like mules to be heard at all.  But I do want to head off a doomer reading that posits the general inability of faculty to defeat their senior managers and governing boards.  Some faculty do see the ongoing power of boards and managers as proof that this or that effort completely failed, and that therefore new efforts will fail too. This view is a psy-op, not reality.

 

Indiana was the only red state on my program, and its politicians have gone full MAGA with the war on universities you’d expect. In early 2024, its legislature passed a law requiring professors to promote “intellectual diversity” to keep their tenure, adding a post-tenure review to match, along with other stuff. They’ve continued to meddle, and have empowered an autocratic president, Pamela Whitten, to do what she will irrespective of the views of the faculty council among other university groups; she’s attracted national coverage with the disturbing results.

 

In early spring 2024, the Bloomington Faculty Council proposed a vote of no confidence in Whitten (core motivations listed in the petition).  The motion passed 827 to 29. (A parallel no-confidence vote also carried against IU provost Rahul Shrivastav.)

 

Yet Whitten and Shirvastav remain in post, and the IU Board’s response to the 96.6% no-confidence vote against Whitten was to give her a $175,000 bonus in September 2024, soon followed by a $200,000 raise.  Thus concluded our Chapter 3.

 

One member of the audience at my IU lecture used the board’s big middle finger to the faculty as proof that resistance was futile—just like the actions I described in my lecture.  I asked the audience, “after you voted no-confidence and the board then gave Whitten a bonus, what did you do next?”  The president of the Bloomington Faculty Council who’d gotten the remarkable vote made a zero with his fingers.  “It was followed by nothing,” he said.

 

Well ok, I said, you didn’t lose exactly. You just stopped playing. They didn’t stop playing. That doesn’t prove faculty can’t win.  It proves you have to keep playing.

 

I was constantly impressed with how intelligent and committed academics are, including graduate students who are facing futures without proper support. We don’t appreciate that enough about ourselves. Everyone I met showed the intelligence and commitment that comes partly from the long process of building intelligence in teaching and research.  These are real powers in the face of incessant negative propaganda and disrespect.

 

Hovering over all proposed solutions was the prospect of faculty unionization.  That wasn’t because people agree that tenure-track faculty are ready to unionize—most thought they weren’t—but because the traditional alternative, collegial shared governance, has been unilaterally degraded or rejected by senior managers and boards.  A lot of tenure-track faculty are now where graduate students were a few decades go.

 

Tenure-track as well as non-tenure track faculty do now need collective bargaining rights. But faculty won’t get them or get the public on their side or be clear about what to do once they have them unless they tell their stories, and never stop telling them, and never stop acting on them. 

UC Berkeley on May 29, 2024   

I’m opposed to the University of California’s current responses to the Trump Administration’s multiple shakedowns.  I want to explain why, and suggest an alternative, by starting with Charlie Kirk, shot dead on September 10^th on a public college campus.

 

Kirk’s killing deprives Trump’s movement of its best youth storyteller. Kirk told stories about current issues like migration, the Great Replacement of white people, and universities eating the brains of the people. Kirk worked, like Steve Bannon, in cultural narrative as a power that drives politics and state action downstream. In 2024 he ran his You’re Being Brainwashed Tour through the country’s campuses including Cas Mudde’s, who noted the escalation from his 2018 “exposing lies and leftist propaganda” tour. The Evil University was a central villain in Kirk’s script, not a bit player, and Kirk sought to stigmatize, censor, suppress, discredit, and revile it. He succeeded, as Jamelle Bouie nicely explains. 

 

Paris on September 1, 2016    

By Sean L. Malloy, Professor of History and Critical Race and Ethnic Studies (CRES), University of California, Merced

In early August 2025, the Trump administration extended its shakedown of higher education, which had previously focused on elite private universities such as Harvard and Columbia, to target the University of California (UC), the nation’s largest and most prestigious public university system. Beginning with UCLA, the administration froze hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding and demanded a $1 billion ransom along with other changes, including an end to gender-affirming care.  In response, the UC has launched a glitzy PR campaign enlisting alumni (including UCLA grad and Lakers legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) to make the case for the university while urging Californians to “Stand Up for the UC.”  

 

UC Santa Barbara on March 5, 2020     

On Friday August 8, the Trump administration demanded a $1 billion "settlement" from UCLA after freezing $584 million in federal grants for vital scientific and health research. The proposed $1 billion agreement would be the largest settlement since Trump began extorting universities, and marks the first attempt of the federal government to ransom payment from a public university. These attacks have been waged under the guise of fighting antisemitism and investigating alleged Title VII violations, but we see them for what they are: an attempt to cripple public higher education in the nation’s premier public university system. 

Santa Barbara on December 24, 2023   

In the May Revision of his January budget proposal for 2025-26, California Governor Gavin Newsom cut his cut to the two state university systems. 

 CSU Chancellor Mildred García wrote, “The May Revision reduces proposed cuts to the CSU to 3% or $143.8 million of ongoing funding – down from the 7.9% or $375 million cut initially set forth in the governor’s January proposal.”  UC got the same percentage reduction of the January cut—from nearly 8%, announced a week or so before Trump took office, to 3% now.

 

García went on to note that the Compact continues to exist at the convenience of the Governor and thus isn’t really a “Compact” in the normal sense.  “It’s like the father who announces, ‘I have a compact with my children not to spank them—except when I really need to spank them.” Sorry, I misquote. García’s only comment was, “However, the 2025-26 CSU ongoing multi-year compact funding ($252 million) remains deferred until fiscal year 2026-27 to help address the state’s budget shortfall.”

 

García added, “I commend and appreciate Governor Newsom for taking a thoughtful and measured approach to addressing the state’s fiscal challenges, while recognizing the unique and invaluable role that higher education institutions, and the CSU in particular, play in driving California’s workforce and economy.”

 

Not to be outdone, University of California President Michael V. Drake wrote, 

We are deeply grateful to Gov. Newsom for recognizing the value of the University of California’s contributions to our state in the May Revise. This is a challenging budget year for California, and our state leaders are facing very tough choices. Even in this difficult moment, the Governor has reduced the University’s cut from 8 percent to 3 percent, demonstrating his strong commitment to California’s students. His proposed budget minimizes cuts to vital student support services and preserves critical investments like affordable student housing construction.

 

The top managers at CSU and UC regularly teach their students and the public that Newsom is a sturdy hero of higher education funding.  If you criticize Newsom’s budgets for your campus, you in effect criticize your president, chancellor, and university officials, even though they've already done the maximum.

 

UC’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Nathan Brostrom presented the cut-of-the-cut budget to the Board of Regents on May 14th (Item F4; video is from Finance and Capital Strategies Committee starting at 14’30.”  Here’s the summary slide.

Figure 1

 

 

I recommend ignoring the rightward columns, in which we imagine that the state stops hurting UC and turns over a new leaf. This is still very bad news. The ongoing $129 million state cut is oblivious to the cuts tsunami coming from the federal government, in the ten dimensions I outlined in my last post (Liner Note 25).

 

In his Remaking post, “Manufactured Austerity,” Trevor Griffey laid out the history of the negotiations. He noted the injustice of the January plan: 

Budget cuts negotiated in 2024 seemed like a done deal. Then something unexpected happened: new, more optimistic revenue forecasts came in, and the state of California entered 2025 with a projected $363 million budget surplus.

 

The Governor could have proposed to use some of this money to give a reprieve to the UC and CSU systems, or try to sustain the compact another year. 

 

Instead, the Governor’s January budget proposal reduced planned cuts to state agencies, while leaving the 8 percent cut and compact deferral in place for UC and CSU. 

 

The May Revision is a partial correction of that extra cut meted out by the governor and legislature to UC and CSU. But it’s still a cut in the worst year in my lifetime for U.S. colleges and universities. 

 

Where did the Department of Finance and the California legislature get the idea that it would be OK to replace the Compact increase with a $129 million cut?  

 

At Cal Matters, Mikhail Zinshteyn has reported,

The chair of the Assembly’s budget subcommittee on education finance, David Alvarez, a Democrat from Chula Vista, asked UC senior officials how much the state could cut and still leave student academics largely unaffected, including graduation rates and other endeavors that “ensure that student access remains the same.”

 

For UC San Diego Chancellor Pradeep Khosla, the answer was about $30 million, much less than the roughly $73 million in state cuts the campus would absorb under the current plan.  Systemwide, the UC’s 10 campuses could tolerate an ongoing cut of $125 million, said Seija Virtanen, a UC government relations official.

 

Mystery solved. The new cut idea came from UC officials themselves. Khosla told the Assembly Budget Committee that UCSD was cool with a $30 million cut three weeks after he told his campus community that they face cuts of $75-$500 million. Virtanen said a $125 million cut would be tolerable. UC’s cut was $129 million.  

 

The official UC discussions take place in a short-termist bubble in which only the most recent increments are in public view. The repressed pattern is a quarter-century of cumulative shortfalls.  

 

I’ve updated the blog’s ongoing calculations for the UC budget (CSU isn’t here) to reflect the May Revision.  If you’d like more background or a refresher, see “The Essential Charts.”  For Newsom’s funding pattern see “Shortfall.”

 

Figure 2

 

Here you see several lines.

 

The red line tracks the state's actual general fund allocation in nominal dollars.

 

The blue line is a benchmark, tracking growth in state per-capita income.  This measures the strength of the economy as it exists in people's pockets.  It goes up 4-5 percent a year most of the time.  

 

UC enrollment did not stay flat through this period, but increased by about 50 percent. The yellow line takes the per-capita income benchmark (blue line) and corrects it for actual UC student growth. 

The purple line is the California state budget (right-hand scale).  State government--health, corrections, transportation, K-12 education, etc--has grown at around the same rate as personal income.  California doesn't have an exceptional government, measured by growth rates.  It has an average-growth government--except for higher education, which state government has made sub-par.

 

Note that none of this data is corrected for inflation.

 

If a state wanted to fund an agency in an average way, it could use several metrics.  It could increase that agency’s budget at the overall government median.  The red line would track the purple line. 

 

Or it could increase that agency's revenues at the same rate as per-capita income. The red line would track the blue line. (In such a case, the legislature wouldn’t be treating that agency as more special, but just letting UC or CSU or public health or transportation grow with the state.)

 

Or the state could also acknowledge the growth in that agency’s service obligations, like enrollment growth.  In this case, the red line would track the yellow line. 

 

You can see that none of these average treatments take place.  UC’s state general fund revenues have fallen steadily behind the state in all three measures. And UC officials seem not only to be okay with this, but to co-create the substandard increases over years.

 

I’ve never understood why they do this, or why UC people don’t try in an organized way to make them stop. But here we are.

 

The traditional excuse was that UC will made up for state cuts with increases in student tuition. This has always been unpopular with the California public, so the line was that UC is compensating for state cuts by triple-charging international students, and this it’s a win for the state taxpayer.  When the taxpayers’ 4.0 or 4.3 GPA kids were getting rejected in large numbers from the flagship campuses with the highest shares of international students, parents complained, and the state negotiated campus-by-campus caps. Resident tuition got frozen by Jerry Brown (thanks to student protests) in the early 2010s, and the “cohort” tuition replacement makes little revenue difference. 

 

Long story short, if you calculate net tuition income, taking out some big expenses no longer covered by the state, you get this chart.  The green line adds UC general funds and net tuition income to state general funds.

 

Figure 3

 

Any way you slice it, the University of California has been underfunded by the state throughout this century. 

 

After these many years of substandard funding, UC (and CSU) are now woefully exposed to the ax-murdering of federal agency grants. At CUCFA, Eric Hays has calculated (conservatively) a UC-wide loss of $421 million in federal research funds from just one of the ten types of cuts—NIH reductions in indirect cost recovery rates to 15%.  

 

Damage is settling in everywhere. The system has frozen hiring on all campuses, amid various campus measures.

 

I noted above that UC San Diego, Chancellor Pradeep K. Khosla warned of cuts on April 1^st.

We are unable to predict exactly what the losses will be, but our initial scenario planning models indicate possible reductions ranging from $75 million to more than $500 million annually. In preparation, I have asked budget offices to model a 2.5% to 12.5% budget reduction based on these initial scenarios. We will continue to evaluate the data and further refine the range of our estimates.

 

That was the last update on his page.

 

At UC Santa Barbara, the chancellor has asked units to prepare for across-the-board cuts of 10%.

 

UC Santa Cruz already had a $107-111 million structural deficit before Trump’s election, and faces cuts and layoffs.  Students are noticing educational effects.

 

UC Davis was already projecting a doubling of its core funds deficit to $90 million, and now expects further losses due to federal cuts of $118 to $408 million.  The chancellor's statement following the May Revision (h/t Mikhail Zinshteyn) declares a $53 million deficit on tuition and state funds, and a prospective $500 -$907 million deficit adding federal sources at the campus and medical center combined.

 

And so on. 

 

The financial information is woefully incomplete. It doesn’t tie specific levels of cuts to known policy variations.  There are no “bridge funding” policies of the kind I discussed in Liner Note 25. There are no elements of a coming plan. 

 

Researchers across the system engage in pure guesswork trying to figure out the near future of their research and of their students and staff. What kind support institutional support might they have? Nobody knows. 

 

This atmosphere may explain why the chair of the Santa Barbara division of the Academic Senate resorted to writing, “I like to think that the temporal rhythms of institutions—which can admittedly be frustratingly slow, particularly in relation to the frenzied pace of the news environment—are ultimately going to be our best defense.” Perhaps that’s the function of opacity too: the psychic defense of knowing little and thus having a reason never to be ready with a large and possibly successful counteraction.

 

Pressure seems to generate many bad ideas on high.  Faculty have had to spend time this year opposing ideas like converting the 7 quarter-based UC campuses to the semester system (look at the work already poured into this), or UCOP forcing universal adoption of root-level surveillance software on all UC computer hardware without consultation (this UC Irvine Senate resolution against the plan passed with a 94.9% yes vote). 

 

Unquantified, undebated budget calamity is also behind serious challenges to UC’s educational core. At the UCLA Faculty Association blog, Dan Mitchell summarized part of EVC Darnell Hunt’s commentary like this: 

 

After the student-worker strike a couple of years ago - which boosted labor costs - and given the current outlook of reduced federal and state support, the number of PhDs UCLA can train is being re-examined. The job outlook for PhD graduates has also been diminished by federal policy. Some departments in the past created sections staffed by PhD student TAs in order to support those students. Now only needed sections will be staffed. And UCLA is looking at whether even needed sections might be replaced by such tech alternatives as AI and remote/hybrid classes.

 

Hunt is suggesting a major shrinkage of UCLA’s doctoral programs, which will make undergraduate majors unteachable, which would require conversion of a large share  of instruction to online or “AI” instruction. Some unknown large proportion of graduate students would disappear, and undergrads would have college on their phones. 

It’s hard to imagine a better way to dismantle the UCLA product and brand--not to mention knowledge creation and public benefits.  And yet there seem to be private talks going on about this at senior levels. 

 

None of these budget disasters are acceptable. I hope more people will fight them furiously.

Mosteiro de Santa Clara-a-Nova,
Coimbria, Portugal on April 26, 2025   

by Trevor Griffey, UC Irvine

 Before 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom developed a reputation for being a modest advocate for public higher education compared to his predecessors. This year, he proved that this reputation depended on flush state budgets, not on principle. 

 

When Newsom first came into office in 2019, the state had a projected $20 billion surplus, which allowed Governor Newsom to substantially boost spending for public higher education as part of what he called a “California for All” budget for 2019-20. 

 

And in 2022, with the state of California still receiving substantial CARES Act funding from the federal government, Newsom negotiated a 5-year “compacts” with the University of California and California State University systems that committed him to advocating for 5% annual increases to UC and CSU budgets. In exchange, the school systems committed to increase enrollment of California residents and increase student retention and graduation rates.

 

Though the compacts were legally nonbinding, they promised a sense of stability and modest recovery to UC and CSU after decades of inadequate and unpredictable funding. Unfortunately, they would soon be shredded because of a catastrophic accounting error.

 

Years of Austerty to Pay for Budget Mismanagement

 

According to CalMatters reporting, during the same legislative session that Governor Newsom negotiated the compacts, budget analysts working in his Department of Finance massively overestimated tax revenue for future years. They treated an anomalous spike in income taxes as normal, and over-estimated state revenue in future years by $200 billion per year. Legislators relying on these projections believed that they were balancing the state’s budget in 2022, and thereby set the state on a course to spend hundreds of billions of dollars more than it would collect in taxes. 

 

As the effort to undo the damage of faulty budget projections continued into 2024, Governor Newsom proposed “deferring” funding increases in the compact to future years. UC and CSU leaders successfully negotiated to receive a modest increase to their general funds in 2024-25, but in exchange for accepting an 8 percent cut in 2025-26. Since the Governor and the state legislature were also proposing an 8 percent cut to other state agencies, the shared sacrifice seemed fair. The compact was temporarily saved, but the Governor’s commitment to it was effectively over.

 

Governor Puts Majority of Budget Cuts Onto Public Universities

 

Budget cuts negotiated in 2024 seemed like a done deal. Then something unexpected happened: new, more optimistic revenue forecasts came in, and the state of California entered 2025 with a projected $363 million budget surplus.

 

The Governor could have proposed to use some of this money to give a reprieve to the UC and CSU systems, or try to sustain the compact another year. 

 

Instead, the Governor’s January budget proposal reduced planned cuts to state agencies, while leaving the 8 percent cut and compact deferral in place for UC and CSU. 

 

As the Legislative Analyst Office has highlighted, this move increased state government spending by $2.4 billion over the 2024 budget deal. The Governor also proposed increasing discretionary spending by $507 million, and proposed $150 million in new tax breaks for 2025-26.

 

To pay for this new spending, as well as cover billions of dollars of unexpected Medi-Cal expenses and rising costs for other programs, the Governor proposes to withdraw state reserves by about $7 billion in 2025, leaving $17 billion for next year. Remarkably, the Governor did not propose using any of those reserves to prevent or reduce cuts to public universities.

 

Indeed, whereas the State’s Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties is normally kept at $3.5-4 billion, the Governor proposed to increase that fund to $4.5 billion. If the Governor had simply thought to keep it at a normal $3.75 billion, he could have eliminated cuts to the UC and CSU system entirely for 2025-26. 

 

The rhetoric about the state budget in Sacramento is pessimistic. Concern that Trump’s reckless actions will weaken the economy further add to a sense of foreboding. Cuts to essential services seem inevitable, and this rhetoric of inevitability undermines politicians’ willingness to vote against the Governor’s proposed budget.  

 

Staff for the California Assembly’s subcommittee on education finance have instructed legislators that even though “CSU appears to be facing a fiscal crisis,” and “UC clearly faces significant financial challenges,” politicians should focus their hearings less on stopping the cuts and more on how the school systems “will weather increasing costs and potentially declining state and federal revenue.” 

 

This fatalism is baffling— more cowardice than analysis.  Decisions made by the Governor demonstrate that the need for cuts to higher education has been manufactured by treating UC and CSU differently than other state agencies. While state budget cuts may be necessary, they are being spread unevenly for political reasons, not financial ones.

 

As Jason Sisney, the budget advisor to the California Assembly Speaker, recently wrote, the July 2024 budget deal was that budget cuts would be equitably distributed across state agencies, and UC and CSU cuts would make up 22 percent of the state’s projected budget shortfall. Instead, Governor Newsom wants to increase spending, increase tax breaks, reduce cuts to state agencies, drawn down reserves, and still leave cuts to UC and CSU in place to cover 53 percent of the state’s resulting budget deficit. 

 

In other words, the Governor is proposing balancing the state’s budget on the backs of its four-year college students. This will take the form of increased class sizes, increased tuition, and increased debt, and possibly even one or more CSU campus closures and mergers. 

 

Can Democrats Stand Up to Their Governor?

 

On April 25, 2025, State Senator Catherine Blakespear, who describes UC San Diego as “in the heart of my district”, sent an email to constituents titled “Fighting for UC.” In it, she decried the Trump administration’s research cuts to UCSD, and pointed out that UCSD had already implemented a hiring freeze and was reducing graduate student enrollment. 

 

What Blakespear failed to mention is that she has declined to sign onto a letter from more than 60 of her colleagues in the state legislature opposing cuts to the University of California’s budget. In fact, she didn’t mention the Governor’s proposed budget cuts at all, or encourage her constituents to speak out against them. 

 

Blakespear made it seem as if UCSD hiring freezes and budget cuts were coming from the federal government controlled by Republicans, when much if not most of it is currently coming from the state government controlled by Democrats.

 

Like many Democrats, Blakespear is happy to oppose Donald Trump’s policies. But when it comes to standing up to a Democratic Governor, will she or others really “fight for UC”?

 

In my conversations with multiple state legislators this term, both Republican and Democrat, I have yet to find a single one who wants to cut the UC or CSU budget. I have yet to find a single one who wants the quality of instruction to go down while the cost of tuition goes up. 

 

Many California state legislators graduated from one or more public colleges or universities in the state. They know that California voters are mostly proud of their public higher education system, and see it as a core part of the services that the state provides.

 

And yet, when you ask a California state legislator if they’d vote against a budget that includes cuts to the UC and CSU, most Democrats— even those who sign letters opposing the cuts— will tell you that they have no choice but to vote for whatever budget the Governor, the Assembly Speaker and the Senate leader negotiate behind closed doors. Their ability to move legislation requires ceding their agency on the budget, or else be ostracized by their party leadership. 

 

When you meet with the staff of the Assembly or Senate leaders, you get the reverse message: the leadership needs to hear as much as possible from members before they head into negotiations about the need to protect higher education. 

 

Few will commit. Almost everyone is equivocal. One legislator I met with repeatedly asked if we could talk about how the state legislature could oppose Trump’s attacks on higher education, so we could avoid discussion of the state budget altogether.

 

And some share legislators whispers that because the Governor provided a 6 month delay to people impacted by wildfires to file their income taxes, and a 12 month delay to file their property taxes, his “revised” budget proposal, coming very soon, is likely to be even worse. 

 

Not treating delays in revenue collection as shortfalls is also somehow off the table. 

 

Taking their cues from elected leadership over the past couple years, UC has already increased non-resident student tuition 10 percent, and the CSU system is in the midst of raising tuition 34 percent over 5 years. Who knows what more may be coming?

 

Fighting for Higher Ed at the State and Federal Level

 

Shared sacrifice may be necessary during times of budget woes, even ones created by administrative error. Yet we as college teachers, students, staff and community members need to tell our politicians that balancing the budget on the backs of college students is totally unacceptable. 

 

For decades, politicians across the US, regardless of political party, have consistently raided the budgets of their public universities during recessions, or to cover the rising costs of health care, corrections, and other services they don’t want to tax people for. Politicians may publicly bemoan tuition increases. But they secretly depend on increasing student debt to balance state government budgets.

 

That game may be coming to an end. It ultimately relies upon federal grants and loans to students that Republicans are threatening to eviscerate in what the Debt Collective has called “the most dangerous higher education bill in history.” And it relies upon students believing that the inferior education provided to them in increasingly large and online classes is worth going into debt.

 

It's up to campus labor unions to invest their resources into organizing not just their own members but organizing students and community members to contact their legislators to oppose state government budget cuts.

 

It would be great if the defense of public higher education only required standing up to Donald Trump. But for now, we also have to stand up to Democrats whose support for public higher education is always hostage to their other priorities.

 

Contact your legislator to Stop the Cuts!

·      UC-AFT: For teachers and librarians represented by AFT

·      Teamsters: For UC and CSU clerical workers and building trades

·      University of California: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/get-involved/advocate/state-budget

·      California State University: https://www.calstate.edu/impact-of-the-csu/government/Advocacy-and-State-Relations/Pages/Budget-Advocacy.aspx