برچسب: president

  • University of Texas Chancellor James Milliken chosen as next University of California president

    University of Texas Chancellor James Milliken chosen as next University of California president


    James Milliken, the next UC president, has deep experience running higher education systems in Texas and New York.

    Credit: University of California

    James B. Milliken, the chancellor of the University of Texas system and a veteran administrator with a history of leading public college systems, was selected Friday as the next president of the University of California.

    Milliken will take over the 10-campus UC system at a tumultuous time as it faces Trump administration threats to pull funding that could diminish the university’s research capacity, medical care and student services. UC is also likely to receive a significant cut to its state funding this year, providing further complications. 

    Milliken, familiarly called JB, also previously headed the University of Nebraska and the City University of New York, an urban system that includes seven community colleges, 11 four-year campuses and seven professional, graduate or honors schools. 

    Janet Reilly, chair of the UC board of regents, said Milliken is someone “who understands the transformative power of a public university system and who can build on UC’s legacy as a global leader in research and academics and public service.”

    “These times call for a president who is an effective advocate, a clear communicator and a collaborative partner to our many constituents, someone who can lead with vision and humility,” Reilly said, “and after an extensive national search. I am proud to say I think we have found that leader in JB Milliken.”

    Milliken, who is 68, will start his new job on Aug. 1 after Michael V. Drake, the system’s current president, steps down. Drake has been UC’s president since 2020 and has had stints as president of Ohio State University and chancellor of UC Irvine. 

    Milliken, who attended the regents meeting in San Francisco on Friday in person, acknowledged this is a difficult time but struck an optimistic note. We know that higher education faces challenges and changes. What will not change is the University of California’s historic mission, teaching, research, health care and public service,” he said.

    Milliken, whose initial contract is for five years, will make a base salary of $1.475 million, up from Drake’s $1.3 million.  

    During past stints as a president and chancellor, Milliken is credited with expanding STEM programs, prioritizing affordability and supporting undocumented students. Under his leadership at UT, the system cut a number of jobs and programs after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law banning many diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.

    Milliken said Friday that U.S. colleges are “the greatest engines of social and economic mobility the world has ever seen,” but noted that confidence in the sector is at historic lows.

    “Yet I remain firmly convinced that higher education is more important than at any point in our history, at a time when knowledge is increasing at a faster rate than ever,” he said. “New technologies are providing previously unimagined capabilities, and our graduates are enjoying opportunities in fields that didn’t even exist a few years ago. It’s abundantly clear that we must continue to invest in the most successful higher education model in the world.”

    Prior to his career in academia, which also included a period as senior vice president at the University of North Carolina, Milliken worked at a Wall Street law firm. He has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Nebraska and a law degree from New York University.

    Milliken is the second UC president in recent history to enter the job after a stint as chancellor of the University of Texas system. Mark Yudof, UC’s president from 2008 to 2013, was UT’s system chancellor from 2002 to 2008. He will be the 22nd UC president since the university was founded in 1868.

    Milliken will be required as UC’s president to oversee 10 varied campuses, $8 billion a year of research money and six medical centers. His experience leading UT may make him well-positioned to do that. The UT system includes nine academic universities and five health institutions. The system enrolls about 256,000 students; UC has nearly 300,000.

    UT has annual research expenditures of $4.3 billion, and the system ranks second in annual federal research spending among public universities — trailing only UC.

    UC gets about $6 billion annually in federal funds for research and other program supports, not including additional large sums its hospitals receive through Medicare and Medicaid. Cuts to that funding would be felt across the immense system, which comprises nine undergraduate campuses and one graduate-only campus, UC San Francisco. All 10 campuses have R1 status from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, the highest tier for research universities. 

    UC officials defended Milliken’s new salary, on top of which he will receive free housing. A memo to the regents outlining his compensation package said UC faces “a highly competitive national market” for presidents and chancellors to lead top-tier research universities. Market data shows “increasingly higher compensation levels” among suitable candidates, according to the memo.

    In a statement, Gov. Gavin Newsom, a UC regent by virtue of his office, said Milliken “brings years of experience and the steady, strategic leadership needed to expand UC’s impact across the state.”

    Constance Penley, president of the Council of University of California Faculty Associations, said she was “cautiously optimistic” about the new UC president. “I liked very much what I’ve been able to discover about his commitment to access and equity in public higher education that he’s shown across four different universities and four different states.”

    Currently, the Trump administration is investigating several UC campuses on a variety of allegations, including discriminatory admissions practices and complaints of antisemitism. Most recently, the Department of Education opened a probe into UC Berkeley, accusing the campus of “incomplete or inaccurate” disclosures of foreign funding sources.

    The Trump administration has also zeroed in on race-based programs. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Education said colleges that use race in “admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life” violate federal law. 

    UC officials have since said that the order would not immediately impact its campuses and that maintaining their racially themed programs, such as graduation ceremonies and dormitory floors, is not illegal.

    In Texas, lawmakers in 2023 passed Senate Bill 17, which prohibits colleges from having a DEI office, hiring employees to perform the duties of a DEI office or requiring anyone to provide a DEI statement or undergo DEI training, according to The Texas Tribune.

    In response, UT cut 300 staff positions and eliminated more than 600 programs related to DEI training, according to The Associated Press. 

    “You may not like the law, but it is the law,” Milliken said at the time.

    UC in March announced it would no longer require diversity statements as part of its faculty hiring process, but has otherwise made no major changes to its DEI programming or policies. 

    On top of the federal uncertainties, UC also faces the likelihood of a substantial cut to its state funding this year, even as it is expected to continue increasing California resident enrollment and improve graduation rates. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s January budget proposal included an 8% cut, or $400 million, for UC. Milliken has previously had to contend with state funding cuts — or at least the threat of them. In 2016, then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo planned to slash $485 million from CUNY’s budget, though that funding was ultimately restored. 





    Source link

  • Michael Tomasky: Trump Just Did the Most Corrupt Thing Any President Has Ever Done

    Michael Tomasky: Trump Just Did the Most Corrupt Thing Any President Has Ever Done


    Michael Tomasky is a veteran journalist who is the editor of The New Republic and editor in chief of Democracy. He has written for NewsweekThe Daily BeastThe American Prospect, and The New York Review of Books.

    When reading the article, it’s important to remember that the President is not supposed to enrich himself while in office. It’s illlegal.

    Tomasky writes:

    He’s using the White House to get rich from anonymous investors—and it’s hardly even a news story.

    Imagine that Joe Biden, just as he was assuming office, had started a new company with Hunter Biden and used his main social media account to recruit financial backers, then promised that the most generous among them would earn an invitation to a private dinner with him. Oh, and imagine that these investors were all kept secret from the public, so that we had no idea what kinds of possible conflicts of interest might arise.

    Samuel Corum/Sipa/Bloomberg/Getty Images

    Take a minute, close your eyes. Let yourself see Jim Jordan’s face go purple in apoplexy, hear the moral thunder spewing out of Jesse Watters’s mouth, feel the shock (which would be wholly justified) of the New York Times editorial board as it expressed disbelief that the man representing the purported values and standards of the United States of America before the world would begin to think it was remotely OK to do such a thing. The media would be able to speak of nothing else for days. Maybe weeks.

    Yet this and more is what Donald Trump just did, and unless you follow the news quite closely, it’s possible you’ve not even heard about it. Or if you have, it was probably in passing, one of those second-tier, “this is kind of interesting” headlines. But it’s a lot more than that. As Democratic Senator Chris Murphy noted Wednesday: “This isn’t Trump just being Trump. The Trump coin scam is the most brazenly corrupt thing a President has ever done. Not close.”

    Trump announced this week that the top 220 buyers of his $Trump (strump, as in strumpet) meme coin between now and mid-May will be invited to an exclusive dinner on May 22 (“a night to remember”) at his golf club outside Washington, D.C. The Washington Post and other outlets have reported that in the days since the announcement, “buyers have poured tens of millions of dollars” into the coin; further, that the holders of 27 crypto wallets have acquired at least 100,000 coins apiece, “stakes worth about a million dollars each.” Holders of crypto wallets are anonymous, if they want to be, so the identities of these people (or businesses or countries or sovereign wealth funds or whatever they might be) are unknown and will presumably remain so until the big dinner or, who knows, maybe for all time.

    It’s also worth noting that Trump launched this meme coin just a few days before inauguration. Its value quickly shot up to around $75. It steadily declined through the first month of his presidency, and by early April, as Americans grew weary of a president who was tanking the economy, it had fallen to $7.14.

    Mind you, a meme coin is a thing with no intrinsic value. It’s just some … thing that somebody decides to launch based on hype because they can get a bunch of suckers to invest in it. As Investopedia gingerly puts it: “Most meme coins are usually created without a use case other than being tradable and convertible.” It should come as no surprise that some meme coins are tied to right-wing politics. Elon Musk named his Department of Government Efficiency after his favorite meme coin, dogecoin (which, in turn, was indeed named after an actual internet memein which doge is slang for a Shiba Inu dog).

    So, to go back to my opening analogy—this isn’t even like Joe and Hunter Biden starting a company from the White House. A company is a real thing. It makes a product or provides a service. It files papers with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It pays taxes. It employs people. Assuming that it’s a good corporate citizen and that it exists at least in part to solve some problem or offer the public some innovation, it contributes to the general welfare.

    Not so a meme coin. It’s just a hustle. It may make certain investors rich, but it does the world no good whatsoever.

    So stop and think about this. First, Trump, preparing for the presidency, purportedly busy thinking about how many millions of people he’s going to deport and how he’s going to bring “Jina” to its knees and how he’s going to hand eastern Ukraine to Putin and how he’s going to cut Meals on Wheels, for Chrissakes, takes time out from all that to stop and think: Now, how can I profit from returning to the White House? So he launches, naturally, the griftiest Christmas present ever.

    It starts out great. Then its value drops by 90 percent. So in April, while he’s illegally deporting legal U.S. residents to El Salvador and roiling the world’s financial markets, he stops and takes the time to think: Hey, what happened with my meme coin? I had better figure out a way to goose this grift. So he comes up with this dinner. As well as showing just how tawdry his mind is, how he just automatically and intrinsically thinks it’s his right to make a buck from the presidency, it’s unspeakably corrupt. (One small silver lining here is that after peaking Wednesday at almost $15, it’s now under $12.)

    Who knows who these “investors” are? Will we ever know? Inevitably, on May 22, people will be invited to that dinner. Will we know the guest list? Will the list be sanitized? Will a few Russian oligarchs be among the top 220 but send surrogates to keep their identity hidden?

    This doesn’t create the “appearance” of corruption or set up the “potential” for conflict of interest. It is corruption, and it’s a standing conflict of interest. Patently, and historically. Chris Murphy is right: This is the most corrupt thing any president has ever done, by a mile.

    What are the others? Watergate? It was awful in different ways, but of course Trump is worse than Richard Nixon in all those ways too. Teapot Dome? Please—a tiny little rigged contract, and it didn’t even involve Warren Harding directly, just his interior secretary. Credit Mobilier? Run-of-the-mill bribes by a railroad company, again not involving President Grant directly, just his vice president.

    And yes, I’ve been thinking this week of the Lincoln Bedroom scandal. In 1995–96, the Clintons invited a lot of people to spend a night in the famous chamber. Many of them made large donations to the Democratic Party. It was unseemly. But it wasn’t illegal. And it certainly didn’t line the Clintons’ personal pockets. But if you were around at the time, you remember as I do the swollen outrage of Republicans about how relentlessly corrupt the Clintons were.

    Today? Crickets.

    Finally: Before we leave this topic, I want you to go to GetTrumpMemes.com and just look at those illustrations of Trump. There’s a big one in the middle of him with his fist raised, echoing the image from his attempted assassination. Then off to the right, there’s Trump seated at the head of a dining table.

    In both, he looks about 50. The artist has airbrushed a good quarter-century off his face, in terms of jowl fat and wrinkles and accumulated orange pancake. And in the dominant, middle image … what do we think Trump’s waist size is, about 46, 48? This Trump is about a 34. Maybe even a svelte 32. It’s hysterically funny. These are probably the most creepily totalitarian images of Trump I’ve ever seen, and yes, I understand, that’s a big statement. But even Stalin’s visual hagiographers didn’t try to make him look skinny.

    I digress. Let’s keep our eyes on the real prize here. This May 22 dinner is a high crime and misdemeanor. A president of the United States can’t use the office to enrich himself in this way, from potentially anonymous donors for whom he might do favors. This is as textbook as corruption gets.

    New York Times and Washington Post, put your best investigative reporters on this and place their stories on your front pages. MSNBC, hammer on this—you haven’t been. Democrats, talk about this every day, several times a day. Do not let Trump’s sewer standards jade us. Make sure the people know.



    Source link

  • Harvard President Rejects Government Control; Trump Threatens to Strip Harvard’s Tax-Exempt Status

    Harvard President Rejects Government Control; Trump Threatens to Strip Harvard’s Tax-Exempt Status


    Alan M. Garber, President of Harvard University, wrote a brilliant letter defending the independence of higher education–and Harvard in particular– from government control.

    Of course, the racist, homophobic, xenophobic Trump administration threatened to cut off Harvard’s federal research grants if they didn’t do more to combat anti-Semitism, a phony issue. Trump demanded an apology from Harvard for “egregious anti-Semitism.” Garber, the President of Harvard, is Jewish.

    The administration also demanded that Harvard abolish all programs to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. But then it demanded that Harvard hire new professors to guarantee “diversity” of viewpoint. Is Trump for or against diversity?

    Garber wrote:

    For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer. In recent weeks, the federal government has threatened its partnerships with several universities, including Harvard, over accusations of antisemitism on our campuses. These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history. New frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances—from treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, quantum science and engineering, and numerous other areas of possibility. For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.

    Certainly, Garber wrote, Harvard would fight anti-Semitism, but it would not sacrifice its independence.

    The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.

    Garner made clear that Harvard would not allow the government to control teaching and learning at Harvard.

    Yesterday, Trump threatened to strip Harvard’s tax-exempt status. Doing so is literally illegal but law never gets in Trump’s way.

    This is tyranny and a blatant attack on academic freedom.

    The ignorant, self-centered Trump wants to wipe out academic freedom from any institution that does not kneel to his wishes.

    Be it noted that Elise Stefanik, a graduate of Harvard, cheered on Trump’s attack on her alma mater. She wrote on Twitter: “Harvard University has rightfully earned its place as the epitome of the moral and academic rot in higher education,” she posted on X, and said that Harvard should lose its tax exemption. She obviously was not brainwashed at Harvard. She should return her diploma.

    Happily, Harvard has the resources to fight Trump. He picked on the wrong target.



    Source link

  • As University of California searches for new president, Trump’s policies make the position more difficult

    As University of California searches for new president, Trump’s policies make the position more difficult


    University of California presidents since 2008.

    The presidency of the University of California has long been considered one of the more challenging positions in American higher education. It requires overseeing nearly 300,000 students, 10 campuses, $8 billion a year of premier research, six medical centers and three federally funded national energy laboratories.

    Now, UC’s board of regents is looking for the next person to fill the role and replace President Michael V. Drake, who plans to step down at the end of the academic year. But in the months since the search began, the job has only grown more complicated and pressured as a result of Donald Trump’s election and his policies affecting funding, racial diversity, student protests and many other aspects of higher education.

    “I think the university is dealing with more significant challenges all at the same time than they probably have in the last 50 years, 60 years,” said John Pérez, the former state Assembly speaker who served on the university’s board of regents for a decade, including a stint as chair, before stepping down last year. “My friends on the regents have a difficult task to find the person to lead through this moment.”

    The U.S. Department of Justice is currently investigating, among other things, allegations of discriminatory admissions practices and complaints of antisemitism at several UC campuses.

    The federal threats are on top of issues that existed even before Trump took office, such as the likelihood of a nearly $400 million cut or 8% to UC’s state funding this year. Even with that probable budget reduction, the next president will be expected to increase graduation rates — especially among Black and Latino students — and to keep enrolling more California residents.

    And there are the perennial questions of how to deal with the many and sometimes conflicting constituencies within the state and university, including the state’s governor and legislators, faculty, alumni, student leaders, labor unions, political activists and parents.

    “We need a UC president that can be ready to advocate and fight back on any reduction of potential federal funds, and then also be ready to figure out what to do in case we do incur those losses,” said Assemblymember Mike Fong, D-Alhambra, who is chair of the Assembly’s Higher Education Committee. He said some legislators have floated the idea of another tuition hike for out-of-state students.

    University presidential searches often raise the questions of whether to get someone from inside the university or someone with fresh, outside experience, and whether to hire someone with experience in academia or from another background, such as in business, government or philanthropy. UC has tried different routes in its most recent presidential hirings. 

    It’s unlikely that the next president will have every desirable skill and experience, said Hironao Okahana, a vice president at the American Council on Education, a national organization that lobbies on behalf of universities. 

    What’s most important, he said, is that the president be prepared for a constantly evolving job. He noted that in the past five years, college leaders have had to navigate a pandemic, a racial reckoning following the murder of George Floyd and now the many federal threats. “Higher education leadership is never static, especially for a place like the University of California,” he said.

    The search for the next president was launched last summer after Drake announced he would step down. Drake, who earns a base salary of $1.3 million after getting a raise last year, entered the job in 2020 and had to deal with many of the issues arising from the pandemic, including a temporary switch to online classes.

    The university’s website for the search says the regents are seeking “an individual who is an outstanding leader and a respected scholar who has successfully demonstrated these abilities in a major complex organization.”

    At the most recent regents meeting last month, board chair Janet Reilly said the special regents committee in charge of finding the next president “has been working diligently” but did not say when the search would finish. The committee’s work is being tightly held: It has met only in closed session and has not released the names of any potential finalists. 

    UC also hosted three town hall meetings in January to gather public feedback. Assisting with the process is SP&A Executive Search, a national search firm specializing in higher education and nonprofit sectors.

    Drake’s final months on the job have been marked by policies and actions responding to the Trump administration, a reality with no end in sight.

    Last month, his office announced UC would no longer require faculty job applicants to submit statements about how they would promote diversity. That move came after the Trump administration threatened to withhold funding from universities with programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Earlier that same day, Drake announced a systemwide hiring freeze in anticipation of those potential funding cuts. 

    In February, UC also filed a declaration of support when California and 21 other states sued the Trump administration over billions in proposed National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding cuts. The judge in the case has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from making those reductions. 

    UC gets about $6 billion annually in federal funds for research and other program supports, with NIH being the top source. Cuts to that funding would be felt across the immense system, which comprises nine undergraduate campuses and one graduate-only campus, UC San Francisco. All 10 campuses have R1 status from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, the highest tier for research universities.

    Also potentially at risk if the White House and Congress decide to pursue deeper, broader cuts is the $8 billion in Medicare and Medicaid that UC receives for patient care at the medical centers at its Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego and San Francisco campuses. So far, Trump says he will not reduce those.

    UC’s next president could be squeezed from two sides: trying to preserve federal funds while also facing pressure from students and faculty not to succumb to any potential demands from Trump. Last month, Columbia University agreed to change its protest policies, security practices and Middle Eastern studies department to keep $400 million that the Trump administration threatened to cut.

    Students are “extremely concerned” that a similar scenario could play out at UC, said Aditi Hariharan, a fourth-year student at UC Davis and president of the systemwide UC Student Association. The U.S. Department of Education is investigating UC’s Berkeley, Davis, San Diego and Santa Barbara campuses for possible Title VI violations “relating to antisemitic harassment and discrimination.” Separately, the Department of Justice is investigating Berkeley, UCLA and UC Irvine for potentially considering race in admissions, which UC has denied doing. 

    Hariharan said she was disappointed to see UC stop requiring diversity statements, which she viewed as a concession to Trump. 

    “I’m hoping to see the next UC president push back stronger,” she said. 

    To navigate the many federal complications, UC might consider hiring someone with government experience this time, said Adrianna Kezar, director of the University of Southern California’s Pullias Center of Higher Education. 

    She pointed to Janet Napolitano, who was UC’s president from 2013 to 2020 and took the job after stints as the U.S. secretary of homeland security and governor of Arizona.

    “Someone like that will understand how to navigate all the executive orders, how to navigate shifts in the agencies,” Kezar said. “Over the next four years, this is going to be a landscape where, if you lack that kind of experience, I think it’s going to be really challenging.”

    It would also help if the next president has philanthropic acumen, Kezar added. If UC loses significant federal dollars, the university will need to look for new funding sources, she said. 

    Napolitano was succeeded by Drake, who had a much more traditional academic background. He served as president of Ohio State University and, before that, was UC’s vice president for health affairs and later chancellor of UC Irvine. Napolitano’s predecessor, Mark Yudof, also had an academic background. Before serving as UC’s president from 2008 to 2013, he was the dean of the University of Texas at Austin’s law school, president of the University of Minnesota and chancellor of the University of Texas system. 

    Pérez, the former regent who chaired the board when Drake was hired, said he’d prefer UC to hire another president who has headed a large public research university, especially if they have experience overseeing academic medical centers. 

    Despite the many threats and challenges UC faces, Pérez added that he’s confident “in the strength of the institution to weather these storms.”

    “But having the right leader means that we will weather the storms more easily and that folks will have confidence that we won’t lose sight of all that’s essential in the university,” he said.





    Source link