#uc regents

[meownhi]

a study of sather gate

students rallying for the freedom and liberation of palestinians have been demonstrating every day of this past week and i want to celebrate and commend their efforts. uc davis as has officially divested from zionist institutions & berkeley should be next

do your daily click here if you haven’t already :)

https://arab.org/click-to-help/palestine/thank-you/

[verytendou]

Idek what to say anymore if you cant be normal abt black people you genuinely need to die atp

[realpersonfacts]

i think it should be legal for unions to take hostages

[jewishpangolin]

"It’s interesting to me that the only time where we have to do this both sides-y rejection is when the victims are Jewish. When we saw a spike in anti-Asian hate crimes over the last couple of years, there was no immediate pushback that said, now you have to reject these other forms [of hate]. In fact, after George Floyd, when we were talking about Black Lives Matter, there was a clear distinction that if you responded by saying, “All Lives Matter,” that yes, that’s true that all lives matter, but if you were doing it reflexively you are denying the real pattern and problem of what was happening in the African American community."

[soon-palestine]

[ozonecologne]

What's going on in California?

Ok, I know we were on strike just last year, but we're doing this shit again everybody!!!! Resources at the bottom.

If you haven't been following what's been happening at the University of California (the largest employer and schooling/housing provider in the 5th largest economy in the world) here's the situation: graduate student workers and other members of the UAW union are currently striking following the UC's recent unfair labor practices (ULPs), which have included arresting, suspending, and blacklisting peaceful pro-Palestinian protestors on their own campuses. This was particularly egregious at UCLA (read this, this, this, and this), but the same thing has happened on other UC campuses like UC San Diego and UC Irvine too.

These actions were unlawful. The administration has turned campuses across the UC system into a zone of militarized policing and begun criminalizing UC students’ right to protest. By resorting to intimidation and force, UC administration has created a hostile working environment and violated the terms of our contracts. So, we're not working!

Image source

The UC hates that we are protesting about this and is trying to block this strike in every way they can. They already filed two injunctions with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to have our strike declared unlawful, and both injunctions were swiftly denied. In fact, PERB just launched a formal complaint about the UC on the back of this second injunction :)

It should be very clear to everyone watching that students and workers should have the right to exercise their freedom of assembly and freedom of speech on their campuses! So we have to stand up and fight back!

The current demands by striking UAW members are:

Amnesty for all academic employees, students, student groups, faculty, and staff who have faced disciplinary action or arrest due to protest.

Right to free speech and political expression on campus.

Divestment from UC's known investments in weapons manufacturers, military contractors, and companies profiting from Israel's war on Palestine.

Disclosure of all funding sources and investments, including contracts, grants, and investments, through a publicly available, publicly accessible, and up-to-date database.

Empower researchers to opt out of funding sources tied to the military or oppression of Palestinians. 

Votes on key policies are still being delayed by the UC Regents, so this protest does have the potential to change how things at the university are done. The good news is that some UC campuses have even already done these things! UC Riverside avoided this before the strike even happened by reaching peaceful resolution!

WE CAN AND WE WILL WIN! WE WILL DO IT FOR PALESTINE!

If you'd like to support the ongoing strike efforts, here are some ways that you can help the UAW directly:

Repost content from the UAW and make some noise! Here is their Twitter; here is their Insta

Show your support for the strike on social media! Here are some IG templates for you to use :)

Donate to the hardship solidarity fund

Thanks for supporting workers' rights! Solidarity forever ✊

[sigelfire]

Diego Luna presenting "Chavez" at the UC Berkeley campus, 2014

All photos © UC Regents

x 

[beardedmrbean]

A member of the University of California's Board of Regents says the antisemitism levels on university campuses are "absolutely disproportionate" to that of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hatred since the Israel-Hamas conflict began generating intense divides last October.

"The antisemitism is absolutely disproportionate. We reject both," John A. Pérez told Politico in an interview published Sunday.

"We reject all forms of hatred. But what we’re not seeing is massive student protests targeting every Muslim-identified student, asking students of Muslim or Arabic background to denounce or renounce something that they have no part in. The numbers and the spikes are vastly different, and the types of incidences are vastly different."

PRO-PALESTINIAN PROTESTER DERAILS DINNER AT UC BERKELEY LAW SCHOOL DEAN'S HOME, REFUSES TO LEAVE

Adding context to the conversation is an anti-Israel protest that upended a dinner for graduating students at UC Berkeley law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky's Oakland, California home last week, the disturbance indicative of the divide generated by sparring in the Middle East.

Malak Afaneh, a Palestinian American law student at the school who serves as co-president of Berkeley Law Students for Justice in Palestine, approached the dinner in the home's garden and attempted to lecture about the lives lost in Gaza as a result of the conflict.

Afaneh was confronted by Cemerinsky and his wife, Professor Catherine Fisk, who both repeatedly pleaded with her to leave the property.

VIRAL COLUMBIA PROFESSOR WHO CALLED OUT CAMPUS ANTISEMITISM SAYS UNIVERSITY INVESTIGATING HIM IN ‘RETALIATION’

The situation escalated into discussions about First Amendment rights and Afaneh claiming she was assaulted by Fisk. 

Pérez, a former Berkeley student, told POLITICO he believes the students siding with Afaneh "overstepped a line" by disrupting the private event.

"They telegraphed their opposition by calling for a boycott [in advance of the event] — that was fine, that was completely within their rights. But they did it in a horrific way, by employing an antisemitic caricature of Dean Chemerinsky," he said.

Pérez also stated that there have "absolutely" been spikes in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hatred on campuses since the Israel-Hamas war began, but the prevalence of activities targeting Jewish students.

"We’re not seeing where we’re attacking every Muslim student, because we take issue with what Hamas did on Oct. 7," he told the outlet.

"One can debate the space between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. But one would have to have serious blinders not to recognize that what’s happening on college campuses, UC's included, is a series of activities that are targeting Jewish students because of their identities, making them feel unsafe and apart from the rest of the community in a way that really should have no place in our society and no place on our college campuses."

He additionally tied in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, a war waged since early 2022 with no end in sight, noting that even students of Russian heritage are not met with the same vitriol as Jewish students.

[sethshead]

Finally, someone in higher education with progressive values who can recognize antisemitism for what it is and has some sense of perspective about free speech, campus protest, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Yes, antisemitic caricatures are still antisemitic, even when the hatred uses Gaza as a cover. Yes, demanding Jews renounce central aspects of our identity and safety in order to be allowed to participate in the very campus debate about Israel is antisemitism. And yes, all-lives-mattering Jews by refusing to condemn antisemitism in its own right, despite Jews being the vastly disproportionate targets of hate speech and violence, is itself antisemitic.

If protestors ever wanted a discussion on how to achieve practical, meaningful goals for justice, for Palestinians, they lost the plot when they, led by their professors, started praising Hamas on October 7, while the terrorists were still committing their campaign of rape and butchery. This was never about Palestine. The protestors urging on more intifada and the creation of more shuhada don’t care about Palestinian lives and more than they care about Jewish lives. This was, from the beginning, nothing more than your regularly scheduled paroxysm of Jew-hate. Ein kal-hadash tahat hashemesh.

[izooks]

Scott Galloway - NO MERCY / NO MALICE

Florida is now one of the most restrictive states in the country for abortion rights: The state’s supreme court reversed its own precedents on April 1 and upheld a ban on abortions after six weeks. Women in Florida, as in many states after the reversal of Roe v. Wade, now face harsh limits on their fundamental rights.

The same day, the court also allowed a proposal enshrining abortion rights in Florida’s constitution to appear on the ballot this November. There is a good chance it will pass, but it will be close — 60% will have to approve the amendment, and last fall, a poll found 62% of voters planned to vote for it. Nationwide, between 60% and 80% of Americans support a woman’s right to choose, depending on how the question is asked. The rest of the world is expanding the right of women to decide when and how they get pregnant and give birth. Yet in many states, a minority of Americans continue to impose their views on the rest of us. I say “us” because while this right is unique to women, it affects all of us. The right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy changed the course of my life, and my mother’s, even though I didn’t understand it at the time.

“D and What?”

On a late summer afternoon, between my junior and senior years of high school, I was in the passenger seat of my mom’s lime-green Opel Manta on the way home from work. Mom had secured me a job in the mailroom of her employer, the Southwestern School of Law, where she managed the secretarial pool, and we carpooled back and forth. Headed west on I-10 (the Santa Monica Freeway), between the La Brea and Fairfax exits, she told me about her plans for later in the week.

“I’m having a procedure called a D&C on Wednesday and won’t be home that night. Are you fine to stay alone?”

I was 16, and only really heard the part of her question suggesting I wasn’t old enough to spend the night solo in our condo. “Yeah, sure.” I didn’t ask what a D&C was, but I had the sense it had something to do with the great unknown, women’s health, and didn’t ask for details. My mom likely wanted to have a meaningful conversation with me, but that didn’t happen. Meaningful dialogue with teenage boys happens … just not when you expect. The question must have found some purchase in my consciousness, as I remember exactly what I was wearing: brown Levi’s corduroys, a Bruce Springsteen concert T-shirt, and top-siders. Not Sperry top-siders, but knockoffs. A pair of real Sperrys cost $32.

I was 16, my mom 46. I loved her because she loved me, completely. But that’s not what this post is about. I also loved the U.S. because it, too, loved us — me and my mom — completely. My mother was a single immigrant raising her son on a secretary’s salary. But this isn’t a sob story. We had good lives. Sure, money was definitely a thing, but we lived in a nice place and took vacations to Niagara Falls and San Francisco, ate at Junior’s Deli every Sunday night, and went some weekends to the beach in Santa Monica, where parking was $2 for the whole day, just behind lifeguard station No. 9.

Our nation welcomed my mother with open arms. Despite her having no education or money, we helped her out in between jobs and loaned her money so she could go to night school and become a stenographer. The state of California loved her son: The vision and generosity of the regents of UCLA and California’s taxpayers gave her unremarkable son (this isn’t a humblebrag, I was seriously unimpressive) a remarkable opportunity. I received a world-class education at little cost: UCLA (my B.A.) and UC Berkeley (an MBA) for a total cost (tuition) of $7,000 for all seven years.

More than just affordable, it was accessible: UCLA had a 76% admissions rate when I applied, and Berkeley’s Haas School of Business accepted me with an undergraduate GPA of (no joke) 2.27. America is about the opportunities it provides the unremarkable, not the manufacture of a superclass of billionaires from the pool of preordained remarkables.

But the ultimate expression of our nation’s empathy and love for a single mother, in my view, was to grant, and protect, her domain over her reproductive system. In the U.S., 59% of women getting abortions are already moms. Twenty-four percent are Catholic, 17% mainline Protestant, 13% evangelical Protestant. Over a third of pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended.

Men and women create unwanted pregnancies. However, it’s often men’s lack of manhood that’s behind abortions. Half of women seeking an abortion cite the lack of a reliable partner as a reason for their choice. In many cases the partner is abusive. Among all abortion patients, 95% report that abortion was a good choice — they remain relieved several months after the procedure. Violence toward women declines precipitously after an abortion, because they can break ties with their abusers. The leading cause of death for women who are pregnant or have just given birth, by a factor of 2x, is homicide.

Alt Control

What is going on here? In my view, it has nothing to do with “life,” as the most staunch advocates of the “pro-life” movement are the first to advocate for cutting the child tax credit, executing criminals, or putting a pregnant woman in danger when a pregnancy becomes a health risk. Many argue that these folks are not obsessed with life, but birth. This also misses the mark — the same groups do not favor economic policies that would encourage people to have children. This is about control or, more specifically, retaking control and power back from women.

I write a lot about how far young men have fallen in America over the past several decades. Even more striking is the ascent of women, globally, over the same period. Women now outnumber men in tertiary education enrollment worldwide; and the number of women elected to parliamentary positions has doubled since 1990. Women’s wealth is growing faster than overall wealth. A static feature of a modern economy is women outpacing men in education and income growth.

However, this has stirred the ghoul that haunts the world … posing a greater threat to society than any autocrat or virus: extremism. The parabolic progress of women over the past several decades has inspired a gag reflex among the most conservative wings of many religions. The radical wings of Christian, Islamic, and Jewish sects have weaponized politics and blurred the lines between religion and legislation. In America, where there used to be a sharp distinction, as outlined in the Constitution, we’ve witnessed a first: the rollback of citizens’ rights with the overturn of Roe.

The backlash among Christian nationalists has been speedballed by the other great threat: loneliness. Two-thirds of women under the age of 30 have a romantic partner vs. just one-third of men the same age. Men have fewer friends than they once did. Unfortunately, men’s loneliness can turn toxic, as they have weaker social networks and consequent guardrails. Lonely young men are more prone to conspiracy theories, nationalism, and misogynistic content. In sum, they risk becoming shitty citizens. The most striking, and frightening, data re the abortion debate is the group that registers the least support for a women’s right to choose: Gen Z men (age 12 to 27). Do you think this reflects their love for the unborn, or resentment of the living (women) … who they feel shunned by? It’s simple: Radicalized and lonely American men want uppity women to sit down.

The weapon of choice among these groups is economic warfare. To deny someone bodily autonomy is analogous to defunding them; they lose power. The Turnaway Study followed 1,000 women who sought abortions (some successfully, some not), compiling over 8,000 interviews over five years. The women in the study who were denied an abortion on average had higher debt and a greater risk of bankruptcy, and they were more likely to be in poverty years after giving birth.

2nd Order

How did you get to where you are now? People tell themselves a story that credits their character and grit for success, while blaming outside forces for their failures. But small twists of fate, errant decisions, and sheer randomness put you in this place, at this moment. I’m in tech because I fell in love with a woman and followed her to the Haas School of Business — I’d initially enrolled at the University of Texas. It’s more likely, graduating in 1992 Austin, I would have ended up in the energy sector or back in banking vs. the clear and present choice of tech in (wait for it) Silicon Valley.

But going further back, if my mom, at 46, hadn’t had access to affordable family planning, our lives would have been changed dramatically. Not only did we lack the funds or connections to figure it out (a rich friend who knew a doctor or the resources to travel far and have the procedure), but we also didn’t have the confidence. Just as I didn’t apply to out-of-state colleges — only rich kids did that. A lower-middle-class household headed by a single parent, neither remarkable, puts both of you on your heels instead of your toes.

If Roe v. Wade hadn’t been the law of the land, things could have been much different for me and my mom. An unwanted child at 46 would have been financially ruinous for our household. There was no maternity leave for secretaries in the eighties. I likely would have done what my father and mother did when their families were in financial distress, and left school to help out. I wouldn’t have enrolled at UCLA. Instead, I would have stayed in the job my father had secured for me after high school, installing shelving at $18/hour — a lot of money for us at the time.

Without my mom having that choice, there would have been no UCLA, no Berkeley grad school, no tech startups, no tens of millions in taxes paid, and … fewer children. I have always been worried about money and did not especially want kids. There’s no way I’d have opted for kids, later in life, if financially strained. We see evidence of this today, as a younger generation is having fewer children because they can’t afford them. My mom’s right to choose not to have a child she couldn’t afford gave me the choice to have children I could. All unbeknownst to me, at 16 years of age.

America is a mix of opportunity and acceptance, each being a force multiplier for the other. The reversal of Roe is about extremists and people who feel shunned trying to recapture control from a group that’s increasingly less suppliant to religion or men. The result is a lack of prosperity and a dangerous regression in the U.S., which used to illuminate a path forward for other nations. The suppression of abortion rights is yet another transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich — no child of a private equity partner is going to lose her right to choose. The economic assault against women, specifically poor women and their families, cripples opportunity and acceptance. It is wrong and un-American.

Life is so rich,

Scott Galloway

[verytendou]

I need every uc regent to [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]

[eightyonekilograms]

Dean Preston on the SF BoS now adopting the "she was totally asking for it, going out dressed like that" approach to handling car break-ins

UC Board of Regents rejecting a proposal for student microunits at below market rate in UCLA because of "mental health" concerns, when 6% of UCLA students are homeless

I swear to god California psuedoprogs are going to be my supervillain origin story.

[protoslacker]

We live in a world in which distrust and greed and violence masquerade as common sense, and in which the pathways of distrust and greed and violence are rapidly becoming self-validating. By following those pathways we create the social and international structures, the premises upon which we must live. By choosing the «common sense» of distrust, we choose also the progressive truth of distrust. We cause horror to become the only pathway to wisdom.

Gregory Bateson from a letter to the UC Regents 1979 quoted by Nora Bateson in an article at Klimaaksjon/Norwegian Writes' Climate Campaign/NWCC. Letters from the Past to the Future. Received. / Nora Bateson

HERE YOU CAN READ THE GREGORY BATESON-LETTERS TO UC REGENTS

[captain-lovelace]

Was recently reminded of this in my notes, so here’s the two year update Munger Hall, aka the death trap designed by a billionaire who seemed determined to treat students as lab rats rather than people.

An independent review panel found that building Munger Hall would be “unwise” as was previously planned and suggested revisions, including increasing bedroom size, adding windows to every suite (if not every bedroom), and adding kitchens to every 8-person suite, rather than— and I also can’t believe this was initially in the plans— having one kitchen to be shared between 63 students, with no nearby dining hall.

The redesign also removed two stories from the building, making an 11-story form into a 9-story dorm. Maximum capacity has been reduced to 3500.

UCSB is being sued by the city of Goleta and the county of Santa Barbara because in order to pursue Munger Hall they fucked with previously legally binding housing agreements and missed deadlines in the process. Reportedly they scrapped previous housing plans for Munger Hall.

The building redesign is still in progress; UC Regents are frustrated with delays, which tells you how much they care about student wellbeing. The redesign has yet to be approved for environmental impact.

Munger is 99 now and if we all hope really hard maybe we can have him dead before he has the satisfaction of seeing ground break for this fucking thing.

UCSB students are still protesting Munger Hall. Most recently, students held a die-in in March of this year, calling for more humane housing solutions.

UCSB still plan on building Munger Hall.

On a personal note: UCSB has been experiencing a housing crisis for years. I graduated in 2022, and when I was last there people were living in hotels and crashing on couches because there was nowhere else for them to go. Many students are facing homelessness now. That is, for obvious reasons, bad. But instead of doing anything workable about the problem, UCSB chose to take a billionaire’s money— which only covers 13% of the costs of building this fucking monstrosity, and make no mistake even with the renovations it is STILL a monstrosity, just a less egregious one— to be entirely beholden to his will on the building’s design. It has mired them in problems for years. It has led to their chief architect quitting, and massive amounts of bad press, and it has gotten them sued twice over and will probably get them sued again once people start actually living there. This building could not more clearly NOT be the answer to UCSB’s problems, and they are going to build it anyways. Press and frustration and anger and change have all died down, and UCSB students don’t want that to happen. The higher-ups are still planning this for students at UCSB, and if it gets implemented there it will be implemented elsewhere.

Students are people. Students, like everyone else, deserve humane housing conditions. Munger Hall is not those conditions.

Hey dunno if anyone who follows me has heard but UC Santa Barbara is planning to build a 4500 student dorm where 94% of the rooms won’t have windows and there are only two exits because a 97 year old billionaire thinks college students aren’t human beings

[immaculatasknight]

Confronting the academic establishment

[beardedmrbean]

University of California faculty and other staff could be banned from publishing political statements, including those stemming from the Israel-Hamas conflict, on university websites and other university channels under a policy that UC’s board of regents could consider as soon as Thursday. The consideration of such a policy comes after some units, including at least two ethnic studies departments, posted statements on their websites last fall supporting Palestine and condemning Israel.

The proposal is causing an uproar among some faculty who say it would repress their academic freedom and question how it would be enforced. UC officials behind the idea, though, say it is necessary to ensure that the opinions of certain individuals or groups of faculty aren’t mistaken for the opinions of UC as a whole. SF man who brutally murdered 3-year-old granted parole

“When individual or group viewpoints or opinions on matters not directly related to the official business of the unit are posted on these administrative websites, it creates the potential that the statements and opinions will be mistaken as the position of the institution itself,” regent Jay Sures, who helped develop the proposal as chair of the regents’ compliance and audit committee, said during Wednesday’s regents meeting.

The effort is the latest fallout from the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas and Israel’s military response in Gaza, which has triggered sharp responses from pro- and anti-Israeli groups. The policy does not specifically mention any particular issue, but some faculty see it as an attempt to prevent them from discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Since the fall, the website for UC Santa Cruz’s critical race and ethnic studies department has displayed a statement calling on “scholars, researchers, organizers, and administrators worldwide” to take action “to end Israel’s genocidal attack on Gaza.” The website for UC San Diego’s ethnic studies department includes several statements and commentaries. One statement says the ethnic studies community at UC San Diego supports Palestinian people and their “freedom from an apartheid system that seeks to dehumanize them in unconscionable ways.”

Sures last fall also sharply criticized a letter by the UC Ethnic Studies Council. In the letter, the council said official UC communications denouncing Hamas for its Oct. 7 attack on Israel distorted and misrepresented “the unfolding genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and thereby contribute to the racist and dehumanizing erasure of Palestinian daily reality.” Sures wrote a public response to the council saying the letter “is rife with falsehoods about Israel and seeks to legitimize and defend the horrific savagery of the Hamas massacre.”

One regent, Hadi Makarechian, acknowledged during Wednesday’s regents meeting that the regents were considering the issue because “some people were making some political statements” related to Palestine and Hamas.

Christine Hong, a professor of critical race and ethnic studies at UC Santa Cruz, said during the public comment portion of the meeting that the regents are attempting to “repress academic freedom” and disallow “any critical study or discussion of Palestine.”

“Your emissary, regent Jay Sures, declared war on ethnic studies,” Hong added.

Sures maintained Wednesday that the policy isn’t meant to impede free speech and that he believes there “are many avenues” for faculty to share their viewpoints.

“I’m not so sure that it needs to go on the landing pages of departmental websites,” he said.

The final language of the policy that the regents could vote on isn’t yet known. According to their agenda, regents were scheduled to vote Wednesday on a policy stating that “official channels of communication, including the main landing pages of websites, of schools, departments, centers, units, and other entities should not be used for purposes of publicly expressing the personal or collective opinions of unit members or of the entity.”

That language was criticized for being too ambiguous, including by two key UC law professors who urged the regents to reject the proposal. The professors — Ty Alper of UC Berkeley and Brian Soucek of UC Davis — each previously served terms as chair of the UC Academic Senate’s university committee on academic freedom. As chairs, they helped develop a 2022 recommendation by the Senate that faculty departments should be allowed to issue opinionated statements.

In a letter to the regents, Alper and Soucek said the proposed policy “raises more questions than it settles.” Do official channels include a department’s social media pages, even though those aren’t UC-hosted websites? Do emails sent by a dean or department chair count as official channels? Are faculty departments violating the policy if they were to sign a public statement hosted on a website not operated by UC?

Acknowledging that the language was indeed ambiguous, UC staff during the meeting amended it and presented two different options to regents. Under the first option, faculty departments would be banned from expressing opinions only on the “main landing pages” of university websites. The second option featured language that would extend the ban beyond the landing pages and to other websites, at the discretion of a university administrator.

But those options also caused confusion and debate among regents and UC officials.

“Even if it’s not on the main landing page, if someone says, this is the official viewpoint of Department X on this political issue, I think you could interpret some of this language to say, we also don’t want people to do that,” Howard Gillman, the chancellor of UC Irvine, said Wednesday while addressing the regents.

Some regents and officials also suggested that the policy include language that university departments should have designated opinion pages on their websites, and that any political statements or other opinions should be limited to existing on those pages.

Sures agreed to work overnight with fellow regent Lark Park and UC’s general counsel, Charles Robinson, to further revise the policy and return Thursday with a new action item. By possibly banning faculty departments from making political statements, UC’s new policy could run counter to the 2022 Academic Senate recommendation, some faculty say. Lithium-ion battery causes fire on Google campus in Mountain View

At that time, the Senate’s academic council and university committee on academic freedom agreed that “departments should not be precluded from issuing or endorsing statements in the name of the department,” noting that freedom of expression as well as academic freedom are “core tenets of the UC educational mission.” The Senate took up the issue after UCLA’s Asian American studies department published a statement expressing solidarity with Palestinians and denouncing Israel.

In a social media statement Wednesday, the Berkeley Faculty Association said the idea to ban departments from making political statements was already considered and rejected by the Academic Senate in 2022. The faculty association also questioned how the new policy would be enforced and urged the regents to reject it.

“Who gets to decide what is a political statement and who will be responsible for policing the websites and social media accounts of academic units? We urge the Regents not to approve a dangerously ambiguous policy which raises alarming questions about governance and academic freedom,” the faculty association wrote.