Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Academic Freedom Grant Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Faculty, students urge regents to resist federal grant conditions and defend academic freedom
Summary
Faculty, graduate students and researchers told the UC Health Services Committee that federal suspensions and proposed settlement conditions threaten academic freedom and research funding; some speakers urged the university to litigate rather than accept restrictive settlements.
Speakers during the University of California Board of Regents Health Services Committee public comment period urged the regents to oppose federal conditions tied to grant funding and to defend academic freedom rather than accept settlements that could limit research, hiring or curriculum.
"I strongly oppose UC making any agreement with the federal government that will impact academic freedom," said Gina Sakray, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at UC San Diego and a member of the UC Academic Senate. Sakray cited a recent court ruling in favor of AAUP and Harvard that found certain federal actions illegal and urged the regents to consider litigation rather than monetary settlements that could constrain UC’s faculty and research.
Graduate students and researchers described immediate harms from suspended grants. "Each day the suspension continues, graduate student researchers like myself lose tuition support and income, delay academic research progress and our departments struggle to provide a safety net," said Jack Finn, a third-year doctoral student in epidemiology at UCLA and a UAW representative.
Speakers warned that proposed settlement conditions could disproportionately harm students from underrepresented backgrounds, including first-generation, low-income, undocumented and international students. Commenters asked the regents to include a student regent in advisory processes and to coordinate with state leaders to challenge federal actions.
The comments were appeals and policy recommendations; the public session did not record formal motions or decisions. Speakers appealed to the regents to pursue legal remedies where appropriate and to reject settlement terms that would curtail academic freedom or condition research funding on administrative changes.
