Thank you, Chair Reilly. My comments will be quite mundane after that inspiring set of remarks. It’s a good counterweight to what I’m going to bring to the table today.
But first, I want to add my welcome to our four new Board members. Welcome — delighted to have you with us — and my gratitude to our outgoing members.
So the counterweight — it seems to me like I am constantly updating the Board on new actions by the federal government involving UC and our campuses.
The nonstop actions against the University of California and other leading universities continues unabated. These have included the suspension of research funding, countless burdensome investigations into admissions and employment practices, and challenges to an array of university policies and practices.
Most of these matters remain unresolved, and while some federal funding has at least temporarily been restored, the impact of this assault on higher education to our campuses, to innovation, to the economy, and to life-saving research and health care for people across this country is almost impossible to overstate.
At UC, these actions have required tens of millions of dollars in added legal expenses and drawn heavily on the time and attention of this board, our administrative leadership, our faculty and staff as we seek to preserve the world-class institutions we serve.
Obviously, the work to defend and advance UC is essential. But it comes at a cost well beyond the dollars. It diverts attention from work that is equally important — charting the future of higher education and the University of California specifically.
To call this a distraction seems inadequate to the scale.
We must of course continue to defend the integrity and lifeblood of our institutions, but at the same time we cannot lose sight of the other vital work ahead. We must summon the clarity, the discipline, and the energy to do what universities — and the University of California in particular — have always done: Harness our talent to meet the challenges and seize opportunities regardless of the political winds of the moment.
It means understanding the perspectives of the stakeholders we serve and responding thoughtfully.
It means adapting to serve learners who will depend on universities throughout their careers and their lives.
It means building on California’s Master Plan — one of the most ambitious frameworks in higher education — to position this University and this state for leadership in the 21st century.
And it means engaging directly with the opportunities and challenges posed by emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing — not only for universities, but for our broader economy, our quality of life, and our democracy. We should be, and we will be leaders in this vital work.
We would prefer to pursue this in partnership with our leaders in Washington, or at least not in the face of open hostility from them. The one thing we can’t afford to do is wait on them.
I will have more to say about each of these subjects in the weeks and months ahead.
Today, however, I want to talk about another foundational challenge. One I have discussed for several years now with colleagues and with the public. One that if we do not adequately address, we will not be able to meet the other challenges or capitalize on other opportunities. I’m referring to the widely reported changes in how higher education generally is viewed and valued.
A recent report by a group of distinguished Yale faculty has brought renewed national attention to this issue.
It highlights concerns about cost, admissions, campus climate, broader uncertainty about the purpose of higher education. Although institutions have expanded access and financial aid, complex pricing and opaque admissions processes have eroded confidence.
Just this morning the Strada Foundation released a report on one of these points, describing cost as both a real and perceived issue with the public. Over two-thirds of current college students and parents describe the financial aid process as confusing or difficult to navigate. The report also showed the confusion over price correlated with higher levels of mistrust for both current students and the general public.
The report cautions that restoring trust will take time and effort.
I agree that rebuilding trust will require sustained effort. But our responsibility goes beyond restoring trust. I want to use this opportunity to deepen it. As higher education has become more central to our economy, to our democracy, and to individual opportunity, and as more Americans attend college, expectations have grown.
With these expectations, scrutiny has intensified. Criticisms that might once have been debated by policy analysts now resonate more broadly with the public.
More than a century ago, during an earlier period of transformation for higher education, one of my predecessors, UC President Benjamin Ide Wheeler, observed that universities were passing through a period of crisis — not because the public distrusted them, but because so much was expected of them.
That sentiment resonates today and is echoed in the Yale report.
At different moments in our history, higher education has been reshaped by the forces around it — from industrialization and the rise of research universities to the postwar expansion that led to California’s Master Plan.
In each case, universities built trust not by defending the past, but by adapting and meeting the needs of a changing society.
We face a similar moment today. In addition to the federal pressures, we must also address several broader structural challenges: rising costs and debt, health care economics, technological change, growing skepticism toward institutions in general, and deepening political and cultural divisions.
At UC, as at most universities today, we see this in questions about affordability, student outcomes, tensions around free expression, charges of political thumb on the scale, and whether we have adequate plans to provide excellence and access at scale.
Our contributions are clear. We expand opportunity for hundreds of thousands of students. We generate research that improves lives. We drive innovation and economic growth. These outcomes are demonstrable and continue, but they seem insufficient on their own to sustain public confidence.
Increasingly, the public is asking more about how we operate — how students are admitted, how costs are set, whether our decisions align with our mission and the needs of California communities. Addressing these questions requires reflection, honesty, and action. And they provide us with the opportunity to build confidence and trust.
Again, part of the challenge is that higher education is asked to do many things today. We are the engines of social and economic mobility. We are centers of research and discovery. And we are providers of outstanding health care.
At the same time, foundational norms of the university — open inquiry, rigorous debate, the exchange of ideas — require ongoing attention and commitment. Doubt about whether we are upholding these pillars has real consequences for public confidence.
So how should we respond?
The Yale report offers recommendations, many of which are thoughtful and positive. Yes, there are key differences between an elite private university and the University of California. But the brush of public opinion is covering all of us — and with some justification. For my part, in conversations with chancellors, faculty leadership, and colleagues across the country, I have found a seriousness and a resolve and much common ground.
Among the agreement, we must all work to be more transparent, more understandable. It’s not enough to issue more reports; we must ensure our work is clearer to the public we serve. And that includes how we admit students, how we set and communicate costs, how we assess outcomes. If people can’t understand our decisions and how we operate, they are unlikely to trust what we do.
Universities should be places where students encounter different perspectives, engage in civil discourse, and develop habits of rigorous thinking. This is essential not only for academic development, but for preparing students for fulfilling lives and careers. And to prepare citizens for engagement in our democracy.
We must recognize that independence and accountability are not in conflict.
Universities require independence to pursue truth and pursue new discoveries.
But that independence, especially as a public university, depends on public trust. And that trust is sustained through accountability, transparency, and responsiveness to the people we serve.
These are not competing values. They’re interdependent.
Higher education has navigated times of tremendous change before, and has emerged stronger by aligning more closely with the needs of society
I will close with this: The University of California has always existed and exists today to serve the people of this state and the nation through education, discovery, and opportunity.
The mission has not changed — expectations will continue to evolve. Our task is to meet them. And if we do, we will help define what higher education must be in the years ahead. And we will not only rebuild trust, but we will increase it.
At moments like this, strong leadership is essential. I am confident that this Board and our leadership throughout the University will meet the challenges.
That brings me to a final, important point in my remarks: I want to take a moment to acknowledge you, Chair Reilly, in your final meeting as Chair.
Your leadership over the past two years has come at an extraordinarily challenging time for higher education and for this University. You have brought clarity, steadiness, and a deep commitment to UC’s mission in moments that have required all three.
On behalf of my colleagues throughout the University of California, I want to express our profound gratitude for your service. I am grateful that we will continue to benefit from your insights as a Regent for years to come. In just the last year you had five Nobelists and a natty at UCLA in women’s basketball, so I’m looking forward to more of that in the time ahead.
So, once again, I was going to say, join me in the first of many expressions of thanks to Chair Reilly. But now it will be the second in many expressions of thanks to Chair Reilly.