Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campus Climate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Regents hear more than 80 public commenters pressing UC on campus safety, divestment and staff pay
Summary
At the Nov. 14 University of California Board of Regents meeting, more than 80 public speakers urged action on campus climate and safety, called for divestment from entities they said support violence, and pressed for equitable pay for nonrepresented staff.
The University of California Board of Regents heard over 80 public comments Nov. 14, with speakers pressing the system to do more on campus safety, protest enforcement and investments.
Speakers from multiple campuses described incidents they said amounted to harassment and threats. "Jews make up about 0.2% of the world population and there are less than 16,000,000 Jews worldwide," said Shikhar Lee, who urged the Regents to "continue to value our stories, experiences and concerns" and to uphold campus safety policies. Claire, a UC Law student, urged the Regents to "Please divest from this genocide," saying billions of dollars of investments are implicated in harms she described. Other commenters alleged harassment or violent signage at UCSF and other campuses.
Several student and staff speakers urged more consistent enforcement of time, place and manner and other policies. Heidi Martinez, a UCLA staff assembly president, said predictable, fair pay increases for nonrepresented staff are "essential" to retaining employees and coping with rising housing and health-care costs. Paige Majia, a UC Riverside staff delegate, described personal financial strain and urged equitable salary increases for nonrepresented staff.
Student leaders also asked the Regents to protect student governments' autonomy. Aditi Hariharan, president of the UC Student Association, said student governments had passed divestment resolutions and then faced administrative pushback at some campuses, which she said hindered student representation and campus democracy.
What happened next: the public comment period concluded and the Regents moved on to a scheduled presentation and later a closed session. The Board did not provide immediate responses to individual public comments during the meeting; the chair said comments would be taken seriously and considered by staff and Regents.
Why it matters: public comment gave a cross-section of student, staff and community concerns about campus climate, enforcement of protest rules and the universitys investment choices. Those themes intersect with systemwide policy and budget decisions the Regents oversee.
