universities

SACRAMENTO — Assembly and Senate budget negotiators, intent on cutting $1.4 billion from the proposed $45-billion state budget, sharply cut proposed spending increases for state colleges and universities Friday, and slashed even deeper into Gov. George Deukmejian’s programs.

The Democrat-dominated six-member budget conference committee reduced the University of California budget by $75 million, a cut of 3.7%. The committee cut the California State University system budget by the same 3.7%, a $56.9-million trim. Despite the cuts, the budgets of both institutions would increase by nearly 3% from the current year.

The UC and CSU spending cuts were among dozens made by the committee during its third full day of work on the budget for the 1988-89 fiscal year that will begin July 1. The committee hopes to wrap up its work Monday, then send the budget out for votes by the Assembly and Senate in time for final action by the start of the new fiscal year.

In addition to the cuts already made, Democrats on the committee are considering reducing the basic public school financial aid budget of $8.4 billion by $300 million to $400 million, which would take half to three-quarters of the increase being proposed by Deukmejian.

Although the committee’s four Democrats are cutting spending in nearly every area, they continued to go after programs earmarked as high priorities by the governor with a special vengeance. They remain angry over Deukmejian’s retreat on tax increase legislation that he first proposed, then dropped because of political opposition.

On Friday, the Democrats, with the two Republicans on the committee dissenting, cut the budget of the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, run by a Deukmejian appointee, by 20%, or about $1.4 million. Moments later, they removed the $91,000-a-year salary of Department of Industrial Relations Director Ronald Rinaldi from the budget. Rinaldi is a key Deukmejian Administration adviser who oversaw the dismantling of the popular CAL/OSHA worker safety program.

On Thursday, the committee, with its two Republican members dissenting, cut the $1.6-billion state prisons budget by $100 million, and took another $17 million from the California Youth Authority. The action came on the heels of earlier votes that would completely wipe out the state Resources Agency and the Department of Commerce’s office of tourism, both controlled by Deukmejian appointees.

Assemblyman William P. Baker of Danville, one of the committee’s two Republican members, said the Democrats “are just trying to embarrass the governor” with their actions. He said most of the budget actions were shortsighted. “The prison system’s going to have 10,000 more prisoners next year. Cutting the budget $100 million doesn’t make sense. What are we going to do with the prisoners?” he asked.

Predicts Defeat

Baker’s GOP colleague, Sen. Marian Bergeson of Newport Beach, said the budget in its present form probably will not be able to get the two-thirds majority vote it will need in both the Assembly and Senate for final approval.

“We’ll have to backtrack and undo a lot of these actions. You can’t reduce the dollar amounts of some of these budgets, like the Department of Corrections, without causing irreparable damage,” Bergeson said.

But Democrats insisted that Deukmejian’s flip-flop on tax increase legislation left the Legislature with a huge hole in its budget.

“We just don’t have the revenues to support the governor’s budget. We have to cut somewhere,” said Sen. John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove).

Assemblyman John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara), chairman of the committee, said Deukmejian is responsible for the cuts. He called the series of reductions “the Deukmejian destruction derby.”

Governor Drops Plan

Deukmejian had proposed raising taxes $800 million in late May to help deal with a $2-billion revenue shortage caused by changes in federal and state tax law, but then the Republican chief executive dropped the plan.

The loss of the $800 million in revenues that would have been generated by the tax bill, coupled with $600 million in an additional spending added to the budget by lawmakers, left them with a need to cut $1.4 billion. By Friday, they had reduced the budget by nearly $1 billion.

One issue the committee has yet to resolve is which set of tax revenue projections it will use as a basis for next year’s budget projections. Revenue estimates being made by the Legislature’s two nonpartisan budget advisers–the legislative analyst’s office and the Commission on State Finance–are about $370 million higher than the estimates being used for the budget by the Department of Finance.

The committee so far has been using the Department of Finance’s estimates, but if it decides to use the higher revenue projections it will substantially ease the committee’s problem of proposing a balanced budget.

In another of its dramatic reductions, the committee voted to end state support for the operations budget of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.

FORMER University students could be owed £1,000s in overpaid loans – here is how to check if you can get a refund.

In the last tax year, over one million third level education leavers overpaid their student loans, according to figures released by the Student Loans Company (SLC). 

1

But there are a number of reasons you may have been overcharged on your loan.

According to MoneySavingExpert, this includes beginning to repay the loan during some months, despite not earning enough in the full year.

You are only required to pay your loan back once your income exceeds a certain annual threshold.

This varies depending on what type of plan you were on when you started university. There are five plans in total.

For example, those on Plan 1, who attended university between 1998-2011 are required to earn a minimum of £26,065 before they begin paying back their loan.

Minimum earnings thresholds vary from plan to plan, with those on Plan 2 who attended university between 2021-22 being required to earn £28,470 before they start making repayments.

The blog said that if your earnings vary throughout the year, i.e. if you received a bonus, this could lead you to start making repayments before you are actually required to.

Another reason you may have overpaid is if you were put on the wrong plan.

This can happen if you filled in the student loan section of the HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) starter checklist form wrong.

You can check which plan you are on by visiting the Gov.uk website.

Alternatively, you may be overcharged if you began repaying your loan too early or you had money deducted after the loan was fully repaid.

How to get a refund if you have overpaid

If you think you have been overcharged, you can get the money back and there a few ways you can go about this.

The blog said that former students who began repaying the loan despite not meeting the earnings thresholds can request a refund online.

This is done via the government’s Student Loan Company (SLC) online portal.

To do this, you will need to sign in to your online repayment account and select ‘request a refund’.

Once you’ve requested a refund through your online account, it will be processed in 28 days.

The money will get paid into your bank account.

It is also worth nothing that this only applies for tax years up to 2023-24.

More ways to claim

Alternatively, students can speak to their employer or call the SLC.

This may be applicable if you entered the wrong plan when filling out an HMRC starter form.

Ahead of your call, you can check what plan you are on in your online account and download an ‘active plan type letter”.

You can call on 0300 100 0611 to discuss the matter with the SLC.

You can also call the helpline if you began repaying your loan too early.

The MSE blog said: “When you get through, explain your situation and ask to reclaim the money you’re owed.

“To make the process smoother, before ringing see if you can dig out any old payslips, your payroll number, and/or your PAYE reference number.”

There is no restriction on how far back you can claim, so if you think you may have been affected years ago you can still ring up.

If you had money deducted after the loan was fully repaid, HMRC should pay you back this money automatically, 

Readers of the blog have claimed back as much as £3,773 by using these methods.

One said: “Thank you so much. I knew something wasn’t right when I lodged my tax returns and reading Martin’s article was the catalyst for a sustained attempt to work out what had happened. I received £3,773 back.”

While another said the process only took 15 minutes.

They explained: “I spent 15 minutes on the phone and got £555 back for overpayments on my student loan.

“Most was because of my maternity leave. Thanks so much, couldn’t have come at a better time.”

How student loan plans work

If you wish to attend university you may take out a loan to help cover the costs.

The loan is paid directly to the university or college on your behalf.

Repayments start from the first April after you finish or leave your course.

You repay 9% of your income above the repayment threshold.

This means that the majority or basic-rate taxpayers lose 37p for every £1 they earn above the threshold – 20p as income tax, 8p as national insurance and 9p for a student loan.

Your repayment threshold will vary depending on when you studied at university.

Interest is charged on your loan from the day you receive the first payment until it is repaid in full.

University of California leaders face a difficult choice after the U.S. Department of Justice said this week that UCLA had violated the civil rights of Jewish students during pro-Palestinian protests and federal agencies on Wednesday suspended more than $300 million in research grants to the school.

Do they agree to a costly settlement, potentially incurring the anger of taxpayers, politicians and campus communities in a deep-blue state that’s largely opposed to President Trump and his battle to remake higher education?

Or do they go to court, entering a protracted legal fight and possibly inviting further debilitating federal actions against the nation’s premier public university system, which has until now carefully avoided head-on conflicts with the White House?

Leaders of the University of California, including its systemwide president, James B. Milliken; UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk and UC’s 24-member Board of Regents — California Gov. Gavin Newsom is an ex-officio member — have just days to decide.

What led to the conflict

In findings issued Tuesday, U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and the Justice Department said UCLA would pay a “heavy price” for acting with “deliberate indifference” to the civil rights of Jewish and Israeli students who complained of antisemitic incidents since Oct. 7, 2023. That’s when Hamas attacked Israel, which led to Israel’s war in Gaza and the pro-Palestinian student encampment on Royce Quad.

The Justice Department gave UC — which oversees federal legal matters for UCLA and nine other campuses — a week to respond to the allegations of antisemitism. It wrote that “unless there is reasonable certainty that we can reach an agreement” to “ensure that the hostile environment is eliminated and reasonable steps are taken to prevent its recurrence,” the department would sue by Sept. 2.

A day after the Justice Department disclosed its findings, the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy and other federal agencies said they were suspending hundreds of grants to UCLA researchers. A letter from the NSF cited the university’s alleged “discrimination” in admissions and failure to “promote a research environment free of antisemitism.” A Department of Energy letter cutting off grants on clean energy and nuclear power plants made similar accusations, adding that “UCLA discriminates against and endangers women by allowing men in women’s sports and private women-only spaces.”

Initial data shared with The Times on Thursday night showed the cuts to be at least $200 million. On Friday, additional information shared by UC and federal officials pointed to the number being greater than $300 million — more than a quarter of UCLA’s $1.1 billion in annual federal funding and contracts. UCLA has not released a total number.

In a campuswide message Thursday, Frenk, the UCLA chancellor, called the government’s moves “deeply disappointing.”

“This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,” Frenk said.

In a statement to The Times Friday, an official from the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, said it would “not fund institutions that promote antisemitism. We will use every tool we have to ensure institutions follow the law.”

An NSF spokesperson also confirmed the UCLA cuts, saying Friday that the university is no longer in “alignment with current NSF priorities.” A Department of Energy spokesperson also verified the cuts but did not elaborate outside of pointing to the department’s letter to UCLA.

What comes next

The Times spoke to more than a dozen current and former senior UC leaders in addition to higher education experts about the rapid deliberations taking place this week, which for the first time have drawn a major public university system into the orbit of a White House that has largely focused its ire on Ivy League schools.

Trump has accused universities of being too liberal, illegally recruiting for diversity in ways that hurt white and Asian American students and faculty, and being overly tolerant of pro-Palestinian students who he labels as antisemites aligned with Hamas.

Universities, including UCLA, have largely denied the accusations, although school officials have admitted that they under-delivered in responding to Jewish student concerns. In the last two years, encampments took over small portions of campuses, and, as a result, were blamed for denying campus access to pro-Israel Jews.

In a major payout announced Tuesday — before the Justice Department’s findings — UCLA said it would dole out $6.45 million to settle a federal lawsuit brought by three Jewish students and a medical school professor who alleged the university violated their civil rights and enabled antisemitism during the pro-Palestinian encampment in 2024. About $2.3 million will be donated to eight groups that work with Jewish communities, including the Anti-Defamation League, Chabad and Hillel. Another $320,000 will be directed to a UCLA initiative to combat antisemitism, and the rest of the funds will go toward legal fees.

Through spokespersons, Frenk and Milliken declined interviews on what next steps UCLA might take. Friday was Milliken’s first day on the job after the long-planned departure of former UC President Michael V. Drake, who will return to teaching and research.

But in public remarks this week, Newsom said he was “reviewing” the Justice Department’s findings and that UC would be “responsive.”

The governor, who spoke during an event at the former McClellan Air Force Base in Sacramento County on Thursday, said he had a meeting with Drake scheduled that day to discuss the Trump administration’s charges.

Newsom did not respond specifically to a question from The Times about whether UC would settle with Trump.

“We’re reviewing the details of the DOJ’s latest and then that deadline on Tuesday,” the governor said. “So we’ll be responsive.”

In a statement Friday, Newsom said, “Freezing critical research funding for UCLA — dollars that were going to study invasive diseases, cure cancer, and build new defense technologies — makes our country less safe. It is a cruel manipulation to use Jewish students’ real concerns about antisemitism on campus as an excuse to cut millions of dollars in grants that were being used to make all Americans safer and healthier.”

What insiders say

Senior UCLA and UC leaders, who spoke on background because they were not authorized to discuss legal decisions, said the university has been bracing for this moment for months. The university and individual campuses are under multiple federal investigations into alleged use of race in admissions, employment discrimination against Jews, and civil rights complaints from Jewish students. At the same time, leaders said, they were hoping the multimillion-dollar settlement with Jewish students would buy them time.

“It backfired,” said one senior administrator at UCLA, reflecting the sense of whiplash felt among many who were interviewed. “Within hours of announcing our settlement, the DOJ was on our back.”

Other senior UC officials said the system was considering suing Trump. It has already sued various federal agencies or filed briefs in support of lawsuits over widespread grant cuts affecting all major U.S. universities. UC itself, however, has not directly challenged the president’s platform of aggressively punishing elite schools for alleged discrimination.

It’s unclear if a suit or settlement could wipe out all remaining investigations.

Mark Yudof, a former UC president who led the system from 2008 to 2013, said he felt the Trump administration was targeting a public university as a way to “make a statement” about the president’s higher education aims going beyond Ivy League institutions.

“But this is not Columbia,” Yudof said, referring to the $221-million settlement the New York campus recently reached with the White House to resolve investigations over alleged antisemitism amid its response to pro-Palestinian protests.

On Wednesday, Brown University also came to a $50-million agreement with the White House. The Brown payment will go toward Rhode Island workforce development programs. Harvard is also negotiating a deal with the government over similar accusations regarding antisemitism.

“The University of California is much more complex,” said Yudof, who lives in Florida and also led the University of Texas and University of Minnesota. “For one, an issue that may affect UCLA is not going to affect UC Merced or UC Riverside. But do you come to an agreement on all campuses? If there is a settlement payment, does it affect all campuses, depending on the cost?”

George Blumenthal, a former chancellor of UC Santa Cruz, said he “just can’t see UC making the kind of deal that Columbia did or that Harvard contemplates. Committing public funds to Washington to the tune of tens or hundreds of million dollars strikes me as politically untenable in California.”

Pro-Palestinian UCLA groups said they don’t agree with the premise of negotiations. They point out that many protesters in last year’s encampment were Jewish and argue that the protest — the focus of federal complaints — was not antisemitic.

“We reject this cynical weaponization of antisemitism, and the misinformation campaign spinning calls for Palestinian freedom as antisemitic. We must name this for what it is: a thinly-veiled attempt to punish supporters of Palestinian freedom, and to advance the long-standing conservative goal of dismantling higher education,” said a statement from Graeme Blair, a UCLA associate professor of political science, on behalf of UCLA Faculty for Justice in Palestine.

The bigger picture

Higher education experts say UC’s decision would set a national precedent. The university’s finances include more than $50 billion in operating revenues, $180 billion in investments — including endowment, retirement, and working capital portfolios — and smaller campus-level endowments. The funds support facilities across the state, including multiple academic health centers, investment properties and campuses, as well as tens of thousands of former employees enrolled in retirement plans.

Dozens of public campuses across the U.S. are under investigation or pressure from the White House to atone for alleged wrongdoing to Jewish students or to change admissions, scholarship programs and protest rules and more. But UC has long been a standard-bearer, including in academic and protest freedoms.

“If you are Trump, your target of Harvard or Brown is much easier — a snooty elite — than a public, even a UCLA or Berkeley,” said Rick Hess, an education expert with the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Kenneth Marcus, who served as assistant secretary for civil rights in the Education Department during Trump’s first term, said there would be benefits for UCLA and the UC system to enter into a “systemwide agreement that would enable everybody to put this behind themselves.”

The Justice Department’s Tuesday letter said it was investigating all campuses but only issuing findings of violations so far at UCLA.

Marcus, chairman of the Washington, D.C.-based Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said a systemwide agreement would “provide the federal government with assurances that the regents are making changes across the board.”

Staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump prides himself on being a dealmaker, but his negotiating style is more ultimatum than compromise.

In the last week, Trump has slapped trading partners with tariffs rather than slog through prolonged talks to reach agreements. He ratcheted up the pressure on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates. And his administration launched a new investigation into higher education as he tries to reshape universities.

For Trump, a deal isn’t necessarily agreement in which two sides compromise — it’s an opportunity to bend others to his will. While Trump occasionally backs down from his threats, the past week is a reminder that they are a permanent feature of his presidency.

As Trump tightens his grip on independent institutions, there are fewer checks on his power. Republicans in Congress fear primary challenges backed by the president, and the Supreme Court is stocked with appointees from his first term.

Trump recently summed up his approach when talking to reporters about trade talks with other countries. “They don’t set the deal,” he said. “I set the deal.”

Trump’s allies believe his aggression is required in a political ecosystem where he’s under siege from Democrats, the court system and the media. In their view, the president is simply trying to fulfill the agenda that he was elected to achieve.

But critics fear he’s eroding the country’s democratic foundations with an authoritarian style. They say the president’s focus on negotiations is a facade for attempts to dominate his opponents and expand his power.

“Pluralism and a diversity of institutions operating with autonomy — companies, the judiciary, nonprofit institutions that are important elements of society — are much of what defines real democracy,” said Larry Summers, a former Treasury secretary and former president of Harvard University. “That is threatened by heavy handed, extortionist approaches.”

Seeking control of higher education

Harvard has been a top target for Trump, starting in April when he demanded changes to the university’s governance and new faculty members to counteract liberal bias.

As Harvard resisted, administration officials terminated $2.2 billion in federal grants. The money is the lifeblood of the university’s sprawling research operation, which includes studies on cancer, Parkinson’s disease, space travel and pandemic preparedness.

Trump has also attempted to block Harvard from hosting roughly 7,000 foreign students, and he’s threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. His administration recently sent subpoenas asking for student data.

“They’ll absolutely reach a deal,” Trump said Wednesday.

Administration officials also pulled $175 million from the University of Pennsylvania in March over a dispute around women’s sports. They restored it when school officials agreed to update records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas and change their policies.

Columbia University bent to Trump by putting its Middle East studies department under new supervision, among other changes, after the administration pulled $400 million in federal funding. At the University of Virginia, President James Ryan resigned under pressure following a Justice Department investigation into diversity, equity and inclusion practices. A similar investigation was opened Thursday at George Mason University.

“Federal funding is a privilege, not a right, for colleges and universities,” said Kush Desai, a White House spokesman.

Such steps were unheard of before Trump took office. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education and an Education Department official under President Obama, said Trump isn’t seeking deals but is “demanding more and more and more.”

“Institutional autonomy is an important part of what makes higher education work,” he said. “It’s what enables universities to pursue the truth without political considerations.”

Going after the Federal Reserve’s independence

The Fed has also faced Trump’s wrath. He blames Fed Chair Jerome Powell for moving too slowly to cut interest rates, which could make consumer debt like mortgages and auto loans more affordable. It could also help the U.S. government finance the federal debt that’s expected to climb from the tax cuts that Trump recently signed into law.

Powell has held off on cutting the central bank’s benchmark rate, as Trump’s tariffs could possibly worsen inflation and lower rates could intensify that problem. Desai said the White House believes the Fed should act based on what the data currently shows, which is that “President Trump’s policies have swiftly tamed inflation.”

Although Trump has said he won’t try to fire Powell — a step that might be impossible under the law anyway — he’s called on him to resign. In addition, Trump’s allies have increased their scrutiny of Powell’s management, particularly an expensive renovation of the central bank’s headquarters.

David Wessel, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, said Trump’s approach could undermine the Fed’s credibility by casting a political shadow over its decisions.

“There will be real costs if markets and global investors think the Fed has been beaten into submission by Trump,” he said.

Tariff threats instead of trade deals

Trump originally wanted to enact sweeping tariffs in April. In his view, import taxes would fix the challenge of the U.S. buying too much from other countries and not selling enough overseas.

After a backlash in financial markets, Trump instituted a three-month negotiating period on tariffs. Peter Navarro, one of his advisers, said the goal was “90 deals in 90 days.”

The administration announced a few trade frameworks with the United Kingdom and Vietnam, but Trump ran out of patience. He’s sent letters to two dozen nations and the European Union informing them of their tariff rates, such as 30% against the EU and Mexico, potentially undercutting the work of his own negotiators.

Desai said Trump’s approach has generated “overwhelming interest” from other countries in reaching trade deals and gives the U.S. leverage in negotiations.

John C. Brown, a professor emeritus of economics at Clark University in Massachusetts, said the “willy-nilly setting of tariffs according to one person’s whims has no precedence in the history of trade policy since the 17th century.”

“It’s just bizarre,” Brown said of Trump’s moves. “No one has done this in history.”

The president has also used the threat of tariffs in an attempt to help political allies and influence other countries’ court systems. He told Brazil that he would implement a 50% tariff if the country didn’t drop its prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who like Trump was charged with trying to overturn an election.

Inu Manak, a fellow on trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, said Trump’s inconsistent approach will foster distrust of U.S. motives.

She noted that two of the letters went to Canada and South Korea, allies who have existing trade agreements with the U.S. approved by Congress.

By imposing new tariffs, she said, Trump is raising “serious questions about the meaning of signing any deal with the United States at all.”

Megerian, Boak and Binkley write for the Associated Press.

We, the presidents of Gaza’s three non-profit universities— Al-Aqsa University, Al-Azhar University-Gaza, and the Islamic University of Gaza — together accounting for the vast majority of Gaza’s students and faculty members, issue this unified statement to the international academic community at a time of unprecedented devastation of higher education in Gaza.

Israel’s ongoing genocidal war has brought about scholasticide—a systematic and deliberate attempt to eliminate our universities, their infrastructure, faculty, and students. This destruction is not collateral; it is part of a targeted effort to eradicate the foundations of higher education in Gaza—foundations that have long stood as pillars of resilience, hope, and intellectual freedom under conditions of occupation and siege. While academic institutions across Palestine have faced attacks for decades, what we are witnessing today is an escalation: a shift from repeated acts of destruction to an attempt at total annihilation.

Yet, we remain resolute. For more than a year, we have mobilised and taken steps to resist this assault and ensure that our universities endure.

Despite the physical obliteration of campuses, laboratories, libraries, and other facilities, and the assassination of our students and colleagues, our universities continue to exist. We are more than buildings — we are academic communities, comprised of students, faculty, and staff, still alive and determined to carry forward our mission.

As articulated in the Unified Emergency Statement from Palestinian Academics and Administrators issued on May 29, 2024, “Israeli occupation forces have demolished our buildings, but our universities live on.”

For over a year, our faculty, staff and students have persisted in our core mission — teaching — under unimaginably harsh conditions. Constant bombardment, starvation, restrictions on internet access, unstable electricity, and the ongoing horrors of genocide have not broken our will. We are still here, still teaching, and still committed to the future of education in Gaza.

We urgently call on our colleagues around the world to work for:

• A sustainable and lasting ceasefire, without which no education system can thrive, and an end to all complicity with this genocide.
• Immediate international mobilisation to support and protect Gaza’s higher education institutions as vital to the survival and long-term future of the Palestinian people.
• Recognition of scholasticide as a systematic war on education, and the necessity of coordinated and strategic international support in partnership with our universities for the resilience and rebuilding of our academic infrastructure and communities.

We appeal to the international academic community — our colleagues, institutions, and friends — to:

• Support our efforts to continue teaching and conducting research, under siege and amidst loss.
• Commit to the long-term rebuilding of Gaza’s universities in partnership with us, respecting our institutional autonomy and academic agency.
• Work in partnership with us. Engage directly with and support the very institutions that continue to embody academic life and collective intellectual resistance in Gaza.

Last year, we formally established the Emergency Committee of the Universities in Gaza, representing our three institutions and affiliated colleges — together enrolling between 80 and 85 percent of Gaza universities’ students. The committee exists to resist the erasure of our universities and offer a unified voice for Gaza’s academic community. It has since established subject-focused subcommittees to serve as trusted and coordinated channels for support.

We call upon academic communities around the world to coordinate themselves in response to this call. The time for symbolic solidarity has passed. We now ask for practical, structured, and enduring partnership.

Work alongside us to ensure that Gaza’s universities live on and remain a vital part of our collective future.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

“Universities worldwide, under the guise of research neutrality, continue to profit from an [Israeli] economy now operating in genocidal mode. Indeed, they are structurally dependent on settler-colonial collaborations and funding.”

This is what United Nations Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese wrote in her latest report “From economy of occupation to economy of genocide”, which documents the financial tentacles of Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza and beyond. Its release prompted the United States’ governing regime to issue sanctions against Albanese in a move the Italian legal scholar rightly described as “obscene” and “mafia intimidation tactics”.

The report reveals how universities not only invest their endowments in corporations linked to Israel’s war machine, but also engage in directly or support research initiatives that contribute to it. It is not only a damning indictment of the complicity of academia in genocide, but also a warning to university administrations and academics that they hold legal responsibility.

In Israel, Albanese observes, traditional humanities disciplines such as law, archaeology, and Middle Eastern studies essentially launder the history of the Nakba, reframing it through colonial narratives that erase Palestinian histories and legitimise an apartheid state that has transitioned into what she describes as a “genocidal machine”. Likewise, STEM disciplines engage in open collaborations with military industrial corporations, such as Elbit Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries, IBM, and Lockheed Martin, to facilitate their research and development.

In the United States, Albanese writes, research is funded by the Israeli Defence Ministry and conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with various military applications, including drone swarm control.

In the United Kingdom, she highlights, the University of Edinburgh has 2.5 percent of its endowment invested in companies that participate in the Israeli military industrial complex. It also has partnerships with Ben-Gurion University and with companies supporting Israeli military operations.

While Canadian institutions do not appear in Albanese’s report, they very easily could and, indeed, we argue, should.

Canada’s flagship school, the University of Toronto (UofT), where one of us teaches and another is an alumnus, is a particularly salient example.

Over the past 12 years, the UofT’s entanglements with Israeli institutions have snowballed, stretching across fields from the humanities to cybersecurity. They also involve Zionist donors (both individuals and groups), many of whom have ties with complicit corporations and Israeli institutions, and have actively interfered with university hiring practices to an extent that has drawn censure from the Canadian Association of University Teachers.

This phenomenon must be understood in the context of the defunding of public higher education, which forces universities to seek private sources of funding and opens up universities to donor interference.

After calls for cutting such ties intensified amid the genocide, the UofT doubled down on them over the past year, advertising artificial intelligence-related partnerships with Technion University in Haifa, joint calls for proposals with various Israeli universities, and student exchange programmes in Israel.

The UofT also continues to fundraise for its “Archaeology of Israel Trust”, which was set up to make a “significant contribution to the archaeology of Israel” – a discipline that has historically focused on legitimising the Israeli dispossession of the Palestinian people. It also inaugurated a new lab for the study of global anti-Semitism, which is funded by the University of Toronto-Hebrew University of Jerusalem Research & Innovation Alliance.

In addition to institutional partnerships, UofT’s Asset Management Corporation (UTAM), which manages the university’s endowment, has direct connections with many companies that are, as per Albanese’s report, complicit in the genocide in Palestine, including Airbnb, Alphabet Inc, Booking Holdings, Caterpillar, Elbit Systems, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, and Palantir Technologies.

A 2024 report found that 55 of these companies operate “in the military-affiliated defence, arms, and aerospace sectors” and at least 12 of UTAM’s 44 contracted investment managers have made investments totalling at least $3.95 billion Canadian dollars ($2.88bn) in 11 companies listed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) as supporters of the construction and expansion of illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories.

Furthermore, 17 of UTAM’s 44 contracted investment managers are responsible for managing around $15.79 billion Canadian dollars ($11.53bn) in assets invested in 34 companies identified by The American Friends Service Committee as benefiting from the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

UofT is not unique among Canadian universities in this regard. According to a report on university divestment, Western University, too, promotes ongoing partnerships with Ben-Gurion University and invests more than $16m Canadian dollars ($11.6m) in military contractors and nearly $50 million Canadian dollars ($36.5) in companies directly complicit in the occupation of Palestine and the genocide of Palestinians. The list of complicit companies again includes Lockheed Martin, as well others listed by Albanese like Chevron, Booking Holdings, Airbnb, and Microsoft.

McGill University, another top Canadian university, has also invested in Lockheed Martin, as well as notable military industrial companies like Airbus, BAE Systems, Safran, and Thales, which have also been accused of providing weapons and components to Israel.

In the context of the ongoing genocide, students, staff, and faculty at such complicit universities – including at each of our respective institutions – have been demanding that their universities boycott and divest from Israel and companies profiting from its warfare.

They are not only explicitly in the right according to international law, but are actually articulating the basic legal responsibility and requirement borne by all corporate entities.

And yet, for raising this demand, they have been subjected to all manner of discipline and punishment.

What Albanese’s report lays bare is that university administrators – like other corporate executives – are subject to and, frankly, should fear censure under international law.

She writes, “Corporations must respect human rights even if a State where they operate does not, and they may be held accountable even if they have complied with the domestic laws where they operate. In other words, compliance with domestic laws does not preclude/is not a defence to responsibility or liability.”

This means that those administrating universities in Canada and around the world who have refused to divest and disentangle from Israel and instead have focused their attention on regulating students fighting for that end are themselves personally liable for their complicity in genocide, according to international law.

We could not possibly put it more powerfully or succinctly than Albanese herself does: “The corporate sector, including its executives, must be held to account, as a necessary step towards ending the genocide and disassembling the global system of racialized capitalism that underpins it.”

It is our collective responsibility to make sure that happens at universities as well.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Students could face subject “cold spots” if universities are not allowed to work together more to deliver courses, according to a new report.

The review by Universities UK, which represents 141 institutions, found universities were reluctant to collaborate because of concerns around breaking business laws designed to promote healthy competition between them.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said it wanted to support collaboration where possible in a “very challenging” financial situation for the sector.

A government review of how higher education will be funded in the long term is under way in England, and is expected to be published later this year.

The Universities UK report said greater collaboration between universities could be a solution for institutions who are struggling to cut costs and become more efficient.

Some universities are already delivering courses this way, to the benefit of students.

Mature student Joe Vincent, 33, lives at home in Devon with his partner and baby while studying in Plymouth for a masters degree in pharmacy from the University of Bath, over 130 miles away.

“It’s everything for me”, he says, adding that being able to study and qualify locally “is the difference between me having this career, and not having this career”.

In 2018, he trained as a pharmacy technician at a nearby college, because there was no local university course available to become a pharmacist.

This close collaboration between universities is also intended to meet a shortage of community pharmacists in the South West.

Sir Nigel Carrington, who led the review for Universities UK, said more clarity was needed to prevent universities having to make decisions about which courses to close, or merge, in isolation from one another.

He told the BBC there was a risk of “cold spots emerging in which there will be no opportunity for prospective students to study the subjects they want to study in their home cities or their home regions”.

He said neighbouring universities should be allowed to look at which subjects they recruit the fewest students for and agree that only one of them should teach that course, “divvying up other courses between them” and working out where delivering a subject would be most cost effective.

After the University of Cardiff announced job losses earlier this year, vice-chancellor Prof Wendy Larner told The Times newspaper she was “deeply frustrated” by legal advice not to consult other universities on the impact of course closures, adding the system was “set up to enhance competition, not collaboration”.

The CMA enforces the existing law, which applies across different sectors to protect consumers, in this case students.

In a blog post published on Friday, it said it recognised the financial problems facing universities and that it wanted to support collaboration where possible.

The CMA said ideas such as sharing back-office functions, or discussing possible mergers with other universities, were unlikely to raise competition law concerns.

Juliette Enser, executive director of competition enforcement at the CMA, said: “We know universities are interested in collaborating on courses they offer and we are working to understand how this fits with overall plans for higher education reform.”

It would be for the government to change the law, or how universities are regulated, to allow up-front conversations to be had about whether some subjects need a different kind of collaboration in different regions.

University budgets have been strained by a 16% drop in international students – who pay higher fees than domestic students – after changes to visa rules came into force last January.

University income in the form of fees has also failed to keep up with inflation, rising for the first time in eight years this autumn from £9,250 to £9,535.

The higher education regulator in England, the Office for Students, has said four in 10 universities are heading for a financial deficit by this summer, despite thousands of job losses already having been announced.

Course cutbacks or closure announcements have also followed one after the other this year, from the University of East Anglia to Sheffield, Durham, Bournemouth and many more.

It has become a patchwork of individual institutional decisions, largely driven by market forces, including how many students want to sign up for individual subjects.

The government said it had been clear that universities needed to increase opportunities for students and contribute more to growth in the economy.

In response to the review, Jacqui Smith, the Skills Minister, said: “I am pleased to see the sector taking steps to grip this issue as we restore our universities as engines of opportunity, aspiration and growth.”

A review of the longer term future of higher education in England is expected to be published before the summer.

Across the UK, pro-Palestinian protests in reaction to the war in Gaza have placed universities’ response to human rights concerns under the spotlight. But concerns about links between Britain’s higher education institutions and human rights abuses are not limited to one area.

A new investigation by Freedom from Torture has found that UK universities are offering postgraduate security and counterterrorism education to members of foreign security forces, including those serving some of the world’s most repressive regimes. These institutions are offering training to state agents without scrutinising their human rights records, or pausing to consider how British expertise might end up being exploited to silence, surveil or torture.

The investigation reveals that British universities may not just be turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, but could also be at risk of training some of the abusers. Some universities have even partnered directly with overseas police forces known for widespread abuses to deliver in-country teaching. Others have welcomed individuals on to courses designed for serving security professionals from countries where torture is a standard tool of state control. All of this is happening with virtually no oversight of the risks to human rights.

These are not abstract concerns. They raise serious, immediate questions. What happens when the covert surveillance techniques taught in British classrooms are later used to hunt down dissidents? Why are universities not investigating the backgrounds of applicants from regimes where “counterterrorism” is a common pretext for torture and arbitrary detention?

Freedom from Torture’s investigation found that universities across the UK  are accepting applicants for security education from some of the world’s most repressive states. Yet just one university in the study said they are screening out applicants who they believed have either engaged in human rights violations or “intend to”.

Torture survivors in the UK have spoken out about their shock that members of the security forces from countries they have fled can access UK security education without meaningful human rights checks. British universities, long considered beacons of liberal values and intellectual freedom, appear to be overlooking the fact that the knowledge they produce may be used to further oppression and state violence.

Meanwhile, student activists across the country are staunchly positioning themselves as stakeholders in their university’s human rights records. The recent  Gaza protests indicate that that when students believe universities’ conduct does not align with their values, they won’t hesitate to hold them accountable.

Across the world, the global student body has a rich history of activism. From anti-apartheid solidarity campaigns to the student protests that sparked Myanmar’s 1988 uprising, young people have long stood at the front lines of struggles against repression. Today’s generation – often described as the most socially conscious and globally connected in history – is no different.  It shouldn’t come as a surprise to universities that their human rights performance is a hot topic for the young people they serve.

In the corporate world, businesses are now routinely judged on their human rights records. Terms like “ethical sourcing,” “responsible investment,” and “human rights due diligence” are standard parts of doing business. Universities, which pride themselves on being forward-thinking and socially responsible, should be held to no lower standard. The fact that many have no policy at all on overseas human rights risks is indefensible.

It’s time for that to change.

Torture survivors seeking safety in the UK should not have to worry that the nation’s educational institutions are offering training to the security forces of the very regimes they fled. Universities should be able to provide reassurance to anyone expressing real concern, whether that is those with lived experience of the most terrible abuses of power, or their own students.

In order to do this the university sector must get its house in order. This starts with adopting transparent human rights policies across the sector and undertaking effective due diligence to manage risks to human rights. Failure to take these necessary steps leaves the sector at risk of contributing, however unintentionally, to global human rights violations.

Universities must ask themselves: Who is sitting in our classrooms? Who benefits from our training? And what consequences might flow from what we teach? These are amongst the many urgent questions, but not ones the sector appears to be asking.

UK universities must take meaningful steps to ensure they avoid inadvertently sharpening the tools of global repression and move towards building a human rights record they can be proud of. Not only will it appeal to a new generation of activist students, but it’s the right thing to do.

*Full details of FfT’s investigation, including responses from universities, can be found here.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

As the Trump administration cut billions of dollars in federal funding to scientific research, thousands of scientists in the U.S. lost their jobs or grants — and governments and universities around the world spotted an opportunity.

The Canada Leads program, launched in April, hopes to foster the next generation of innovators by bringing early-career biomedical researchers north of the border.

Aix-Marseille University in France started the Safe Place for Science program in March, pledging to welcome U.S.-based scientists who “may feel threatened or hindered in their research.”

Australia’s Global Talent Attraction Program, announced in April, promises competitive salaries and relocation packages.

“In response to what is happening in the U.S.,” said Anna-Maria Arabia, head of the Australian Academy of Science, “we see an unparalleled opportunity to attract some of the smartest minds here.”

Since World War II, the U.S. has invested huge amounts of money in scientific research conducted at independent universities and federal agencies. That funding helped the U.S. to become the world’s leading scientific power — and has led to the invention of cellphones and the internet as well as new ways to treat cancer, heart disease and strokes, noted Holden Thorp, editor in chief of the journal Science.

But today that system is being shaken.

Since President Trump took office in January, his administration has pointed to what it calls waste and inefficiency in federal science spending and made major cuts to staff levels and grant funding at the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, NASA and other agencies, while slashing research dollars that flow to some private universities.

The White House budget proposal for next year aims to cut the NIH budget by roughly 40% and the National Science Foundation budget by 55%.

“The Trump administration is spending its first few months reviewing the previous administration’s projects, identifying waste, and realigning our research spending to match the American people’s priorities and continue our innovative dominance,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.

Already, several universities have announced hiring freezes, laid off staff or stopped admitting new graduate students. On Thursday, the Trump administration revoked Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, though a judge put that on hold.

Research institutions abroad are watching with concern for collaborations that depend on colleagues in the U.S. — but they also see opportunities to poach talent.

“There are threats to science … south of the border,” said Brad Wouters of University Health Network, Canada’s leading hospital and medical research center, which launched the Canada Leads recruitment drive. “There’s a whole pool of talent, a whole cohort that is being affected by this moment.”

Academic freedom

Universities worldwide are always trying to recruit from one another, just as tech companies and businesses in other fields do. What’s unusual about the current moment is that many global recruiters are targeting researchers by promising something that seems newly threatened: academic freedom.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said this month that the European Union intends “to enshrine freedom of scientific research into law.” She spoke at the launch of the bloc’s Choose Europe for Science initiative, which was in the works before the Trump administration cuts but has sought to capitalize on the moment.

Eric Berton, president of Aix-Marseille University, expressed a similar sentiment after launching the institution’s Safe Place for Science program.

“Our American research colleagues are not particularly interested by money,” he said of applicants. “What they want above all is to be able to continue their research and that their academic freedom be preserved.”

Imminent ‘brain drain’?

It’s too early to say how many scientists will choose to leave the U.S. It will take months for universities to review applications and dole out funding, and longer for researchers to uproot their lives.

Plus, the American lead in funding research and development is enormous — and even significant cuts may leave crucial programs standing. The U.S. has been the world’s leading funder of research and development — including government, university and private investment — for decades. In 2023, the country funded 29% of the world’s R&D, according to the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.

But some institutions abroad are reporting significant early interest from researchers in the U.S. Nearly half of the applications to Safe Place for Science — 139 out of 300 total — came from U.S.-based scientists, including AI researchers and astrophysicists.

U.S.-based applicants in this year’s recruitment round for France’s Institute of Genetics, Molecular and Cellular Biology roughly doubled over last year.

At the Max Planck Society in Germany, the Lise Meitner Excellence Program — aimed at young female researchers — drew triple the number of applications from U.S.-based scientists this year as last year.

Recruiters who work with companies and nonprofits say they see a similar trend.

Natalie Derry, a U.K.-based managing partner of the Global Emerging Sciences Practice at recruiter WittKieffer, said her team has seen a 25% to 35% increase in applicants from the U.S. cold-calling about open positions. When they reach out to scientists currently based in the U.S., “we are getting a much higher hit rate of people showing interest.”

Still, there are practical hurdles to overcome for would-be continent-hoppers, she said. That can include language hurdles, arranging child care or elder care, and significant differences in national pension or retirement programs.

Brandon Coventry never thought he would consider a scientific career outside the United States. But federal funding cuts and questions over whether new grants will materialize have left him unsure. While reluctant to leave his family and friends, he’s applied to faculty positions in Canada and France.

“I’ve never wanted to necessarily leave the United States, but this is a serious contender for me,” said Coventry, who is a postdoctoral fellow studying neural implants at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

But it’s not easy to pick up and move a scientific career — let alone a life.

Marianna Zhang was studying how children develop race and gender stereotypes as a postdoctoral fellow at New York University when her National Science Foundation grant was canceled. She said it felt like “America as a country was no longer interested in studying questions like mine.”

Still, she wasn’t sure of her next move. “It’s no easy solution, just fleeing and escaping to another country,” she said.

The recruitment programs range in ambition, from those trying to attract a dozen researchers to a single university to the continent-wide Choose Europe for Science initiative.

But it’s unclear whether the total amount of funding and new positions offered could match what’s being shed in the United States.

A global vacuum

Even as universities and institutes think about recruiting talent from the U.S., there’s more apprehension than glee at the funding cuts.

“Science is a global endeavor,” said Patrick Cramer, head of the Max Planck Society, noting that datasets and discoveries are often shared among international collaborators.

One aim of recruitment drives is “to help prevent the loss of talent to the global scientific community,” he said.

Researchers worldwide will suffer if collaborations are shut down and databases taken offline, scientists say.

“The U.S. was always an example, in both science and education,” said Patrick Schultz, president of France’s Institute of Genetics, Molecular and Cellular Biology. So the cuts and policies were “very frightening also for us because it was an example for the whole world.”

Larson, Ramakrishnan and Keaten write for the Associated Press.