
By Roberta Millstein
With so many people in Davis affiliated in some way or another with UC Davis, I thought it might be helpful to try to highlight the two fronts on which the University of California is under attack by the federal government, because it is easy to get lost and confused in the details. And before I get into some of those details, you may wish to sign up at Stand for UC (open to anyone) for more information and ways to get involved.
Also, I want to call attention to this helpful webpage from the UCSD Faculty Association, which contains a statement calling on the UC Regents and UC President James Milliken to publicly reject Trump’s demands and has links to many relevant resources. I’m drawing heavily on their work in this article.
The two points of attack are: 1) the “Demand” letter that the administration sent to UCLA back in August and 2) the “Compact” letter that the administration sent to 9 schools in early October, later broadening its “offer” to all U.S. colleges and universities. I had originally hoped to discuss both in one article, but just explaining the first of these took a lot of words, so I will try to discuss the “Compact” in a future article.
The “Demand” letter seeks a $1.2 Billion “settlement” from UCLA for allegations of civil rights violations related to antisemitism and affirmative action. Now, whatever one thinks of the way UCLA has handled things such as the pro-Palestine protests of last year — and I have my concerns — that amount of money is more than the UC system can absorb without serious damage. Governor Newsom accurately called it “extortion” [1]; President Milliken said it would “devastate UC and inflict real, long-term harm on our students, our faculty and staff, our patients, and all Californians.”
Importantly, this Demand letter has only recently become public (as of October 24). The UCLA Faculty Association and the Council of University of California Faculty Associations had to file a lawsuit against the UC administration (yes, you are reading that correctly), who had refused to release the details of the letter. The UC released the information after a California superior court judge ordered it to do so and the state Supreme Court rejected its appeal (see Monica Stark’s article in the Davis Enterprise for details of the Superior Court’s ruling).
In addition to the monetary demand, the letter makes demands on UCLA that go well beyond addressing the alleged problems. According to the SF Chronicle, the demands would require UCLA to (and this is not a complete list):



