Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

Good afternoon. A warm welcome to each and every one of you. Thank you so much for being here today for the Assembly Committee on Higher Education.

I'm Senator Mike Fong, Chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, proud to be joined by my colleagues Dr. Patel and Dr. Jackson, and really appreciate all of you being here today for this very important conversation. Welcome to the Oversight hearing on the impact of the Federal Government on the future of higher education.

Whether you're here in person or watching virtually, thank you for your participation. Please note that all materials for this hearing can be accessed online at. I will now go over some key elements of today's hearing and the structure of today's oversight hearing.

We have a few different options for public testimony today in the hearing room and the submission of written comments. When we reach the public comment portion of the agenda, I would ask any Members of the public here in the room approach the MIC and form a line.

Due to time constraints, we'll be limited the testimony to two minutes. You can exit the hearing room once you finish testifying or you can return to your seat. Witnesses who are unable to physically attend the hearing can submit written comments via the Legislative Portal.

Please note that any written testimony transmitted is considered public comment and may be read into the record. Once again, thank you so much to each and every one of you for joining us here today for this very important conversation. Since the foundation, higher education institutions have been subject to shared governance between states and the Federal Government.

Historically, the sharing of governance has yielded decades of student success, increased financial aid and newly funded programs to aid in the expansion of the workforce. The unique governance structure has always kept in mind the interests of our country and states where colleges call home.

In California, we're home to three public systems of higher education that produce the highest volume of bachelor degrees, graduate degrees and certificates in our nation. Given the vastness of our higher education system, is only logical that any changes in the federal funding, federal Administration or federal regulation would have the most significant impact on our colleges and universities.

Since January, over 170 Executive orders have been issued with instructions to various agencies directing pertaining to higher education. Many of the Executive orders have resulted in a net negative outcome for our institutions.

Changes to accreditation, changes in loan forgiveness, threats of removal for student visas, and the potential closure of the U.S. Department of Education have caused confusion about the future of higher education and ultimately the goals of the Administration.

The result of the Executive orders have yielded numerous investigations into the operations of California's colleges and universities with no system being spared. These include investigations into admission processes, financial investments and discrimination and complaints, all of which we have had a chilling effect on campus culture.

In tandem to the investigations, federal departments have canceled, revoked or rejected grants to California's institutions, and a culmination of this loss of funding has yet to be fully realized.

Additional changes at the federal level include legislation that have changed how our students gain access to financial aid opportunities, cancellation of loan programs, changes in overall limits and loans provided, and changes to the Pell Grants will only harm students and result in a workforce that is not equipped to meet future challenges.

The provision of future of federal funding has always been conditioned upon higher education institutions meeting a set of criteria in the forms of laws or regulations. However, this Administration seems to take this oversight to a whole new level, to another level with the introduction of various favorable compacts.

These compacts guarantee additional funding and favorable access to federal grants. However, the compacts are full of ideology that make it impossible for diversity, equity, access, and inclusion for all students, faculty and staff to remain. California's colleges and universities have been uniquely impacted by the changes at the federal level.

From the drastic cuts of federal funding to attacks on the civil rights of our most marginalized communities, California's colleges and universities seem to be at the epicenter of the onslaught from the Federal Government. The time to fortify and to reinforce our values is now.

Our higher education institutions are pillars of equity and access and the belief that anyone, regardless of income or background, can be successful in their educational journey.

Today we are here to answer the fundamental question as to how the Federal Government is impacting the future of our education, but more importantly, how the Federal Government affects the ability of our California's community colleges and universities to remain safe places, to remain diverse and academically competitive institutions.

As Chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, I look forward to today's conversation and hearing from experts in the field as to how we as a state Legislature can partner with our system of higher education institutions to provide ongoing assistance during this ever evolving and fluid period in our nation's history.

Our mission has always been to assist all students obtain their educational goals and today we will learn of the barriers to that mission and how we can overcome them together in collaboration.

And I'm grateful to be joined by my colleagues, Dr. Patel and Dr. Jackson, and thank you so much for being here today and for your leadership and efforts. And I'd like to open it up for any opening comments from either Assembly Member. Assembly Member Patel.

Just have a couple of brief comments. I want to first thank the chair. Assemblymember Mike Fong, for convening such a. Powerful room of presenters and panelists, but. Also for including student voice, it's very. Important that we look at the impacts on our students who are the future of California. So as a champion of public education.

Especially at higher education access as a gateway to opportunity and success, I thank you, Chair Fong, for convening this very important session today.

Thank you so much. Assembly Patel. Assembly Dr. Corey Jackson thank you very.

Much, Chairman, for your leadership on the countless issues facing the higher education or higher education institutions. Clearly, as we have been taking a deeper, deeper look and certainly a reflection on the very democracy of itself here in this nation, we sometimes don't forget just how important our higher education institutions are central to helping to protect our democracy.

As we continue to think about the ideas of critical thinking in terms of an informed and educated citizenry and in terms of free thought, free thinking and free academic expression is certainly a part of of the hallmarks of our democracy.

And so the more that we can and even as a Legislature, continue to sound the board that as the Federal Government in many cases begins to pull back on support, how can California continue to lean in in terms of making sure that our institutions are functioning the way they've been intended, certainly as our higher education master plan has intended, so that we can make sure that we continue to have strong institutions that will prepare not only our workforce, but also just plain old citizens, which is the most important function and role that we all play as citizens in terms of making sure that we understand our systems of government and our democracy, but also making sure that we understand how we can protect it and how we can be a strong part of that discourse.

So thank you so much and looking forward to hearing from the various panelists.

Thank you so much. Dr. Jackson, thank you so much again, Dr. Patel, and to each and every one of you for being here today. At this time, I'd like to now introduce our first panel comprised of representatives from California's community colleges, the California State University, the University of California and the University of Pacific.

Our speakers for the opening panel are Dr. Junius and Gonzalez, Vice Chancellor of Academic affairs for the California State University President Christopher Callahan, President of the University of Pacific Christopher Ferguson, Executive Vice Chancellor of Finance and Strategic Initiatives at the California community colleges, and Dr. Katherine Newman, provost and Executive Vice President of Academic affairs at the University of California.

Thank you so much to each and every one of you for being today. Please welcome and please join us up front. You will each have seven minutes for your presentation and please begin when you are ready. Thank you.

Welcome. Thank you very much. Chair Fong Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm Dr. Junius Gonzalez, Vice Chancellor of Academic affairs at the California State University. I began my tenure just a little over a month ago, so it's truly a privilege to represent the CSU.

I know a number of you here are CSU graduates, so you understand how essential this institution is to California's future. We are proud that enrollment has grown by more than 10,000 California students this year, that graduation rates have nearly doubled over the past decade, and that we have launched a bold new strategic plan.

While my time with the CSU is still brief, it's clear that recent federal actions from the Big Beautiful Bill, grant terminations and new policies are creating real challenges for our students, our campuses and the communities we serve.

CSU students are dependent on federal financial aid, which is a key contributor that allows us to ensure that more than 60% of our students have their full tuition covered by financial aid. For example, 204,000 CSU students receive a Pell Grant each year, with the average award being $5,200.

On July 4, the federal budget reconciliation package brought significant changes to federal higher education funding and social safety net programs for students. A new law maintain the maximum Pell Grant Award at $7,395 for 26-27 for now, but leaves an estimated $10 billion future shortfall in the program.

It also sets new student loan limits, capping Parent PLUS loans at $20,000 per year and ending Grad PLUS loans altogether. The elimination of Grad PLUS alone removes an affordable loan option for more than 2,800 CSU graduate students who borrowed an average amount of $13,000 last year.

Other recent actions that are negatively impacting our students include changes to SNAP that eliminate nutrition education programs across 13 CSU campuses. We are tracking these developments closely and working with our state and federal partners to protect access and affordability for every CSU student.

Since the new Administration took office, the Federal Government has also terminated 218 grants to the CSU, accounting for $161 million loss in funding.

This has created hardship hitting many people across the system and in the communities we serve, halting critical student support faculty research programs from integrated advising and STEM mentoring to regional teacher training and food access initiatives.

Without sustained support for institutions like the CSU, where 58% of students receive Pell Grants, programs that open doors to STEM careers such as the NIH's urise are at risk. The result will undoubtedly be a widening gulf in post graduation outcomes between our students and those attending large research universities, undermining efforts to grow California's STEM workforce.

Undergraduate research is a proven high impact evidence based practice that deepens learning and drives student success across disciplines. The loss of the HSI and AANAPISI grants has disrupted programs that expanded STEM access, faculty research, transfer support for underrepresented students at the CSU.

The termination of TRIO grants and C campus funding further harms our low income, first generation and student parent populations, removing vital supports for persistence and degree completion. The CSU is a vital regional partner to schools, nonprofits and health care systems.

When the Federal Government terminates a CSU grant, it doesn't only negatively impact the University, it can hurt a whole region. For example, Cal State LA's Los Angeles Urban Teacher Residency Program prepares more than 275 students per cohort to become teachers in special education, STEM and bilingual education.

The Federal Government terminated its grant which may impact more than 10,000 K through 12 students in high need urban schools. Federal grant terminations have resulted in CSU students losing stipends and that supported their participation in undergraduate research on campus employment and other vital learning opportunities.

Campuses have lost momentum on equity driven efforts and the capacity to deliver key public services. These cuts deepen educational and economic vulnerability, particularly for low income underrepresented students, undocumented students, mixed students, international students and threatened progress that has been built over decades. Despite these challenges, the CSU continues to stand firm in its mission and values.

The CSU student body reflects the rich diversity of our state, bringing a wide range of life experiences that strengthen and inspire our campuses. These students enrich our classrooms, research and communities. Our responsibility is clear to ensure that every student and employee has a stable, inclusive and supportive environment, regardless of background or immigration status.

Across the CSU, this commitment shows in special resource centers, basic needs program, free legal services and comprehensive wellness services. And while we are relieved that the Federal Government shutdown is over, we are proud that our campuses supported students who had lost some of their CalFresh benefits.

For example, Chico State identified funding to provide emergency grants to students who are not receiving their CalFresh benefits, while Cal State Long beach partnered with community food banks to host meal drives. If the government shuts down again in January, we estimate that more than 85,000 students may experience delayed CalFresh benefits.

But as federal grant cuts and other policy shifts take effect, a critical question looms. Can we continue to ensure that 63% of our undergraduates graduate debt free?

A point of pride for the CSU and for the State of California if Congress or the Administration decides to make further cuts or changes to successful federal financial aid and grant programs at the CSU. Our success is measured by our students success and our commitment to help them rise.

We will continue to work boldly through any federal challenges that may emerge. Chair Fong and Members, thank you again for the opportunity to address you today. I will welcome your questions at the conclusion of the panel.

Thank you so much.

Welcome.

Do you want me to go there?

Oh, should I?

All right.

Yeah. Well, good afternoon, Chair. Chair Fong, Dr. Jackson, Dr. Patel, it is an honor and privilege to be here before you today and thank you all for your great support of higher education in the State of California. I'm Chris Callahan, President of University of the Pacific.

University of the Pacific is California's first and oldest University, established just months after California statehood in 1851.

With 7,000 students on campuses in Stockton, San Francisco and right here in Sacramento, we are among the more than more than 85 independent nonprofit colleges and universities in our great state that are educating more than 33,000 college students, preparing them for California's rapidly changing workforce.

Today, American higher education, both public and independent, is facing unprecedented and potentially crippling challenges that could have a long term detrimental impact not just on our schools, but on our communities.

On the front page seemingly every day are stories about the New Administration in Washington and and how they are enacting new laws, new Executive orders, policies, regulations and filing lawsuits that have severely disrupted college education in America and in some cases endangered the very existence of some institutions.

There have been massive funding cuts of billions of dollars in crucial and potentially life saving University based research, severe reductions of funding that has helped first generation students and others from underserved communities benefit from from the transformational power of a college education roadblocks to bringing highly qualified international students to American colleges and universities, and even dictates on how universities should evaluate, admit, serve and teach their own students.

You'll be hearing today from our colleagues who will be delving into these challenges in much more depth. Instead, I would like to focus my comments today on just one potentially devastating action from Washington and that is the elimination of the Grad plus student loan program.

The elimination of this highly successful program is receiving very few headlines, but poses a grave threat to the creation of a highly qualified workforce in California and across the country, and particularly in critical health care fields that are already suffering from significant challenges and shortfalls.

The Grad plus program was created nearly 20 years ago and by any measure, it's been a fantastic success. It has enabled professional and graduate students to borrow up to the cost of attendance with fixed interest rates and payments delayed until the completion of their programs.

Nationally, that has meant more than $20 billion in Grad plus student loans annually and 2 billion here in California alone. Grad plus also has been a great investment for the Federal Government with default rates of only 2% and interest rates at this year are at nearly 9%.

And importantly, the majority of those grad plus students are California's future doctors, dentists, nurses, clinical psychologists, pharmacists, social workers, and others entering critically needed professions in the allied health world. Simply put, the elimination of the Grab plus program is bad for America, our economy, our competitiveness, our workforce, and our nation's future.

In California, There are some 35,000 students in independent nonprofit colleges and universities that are now enrolled in high need professional programs with Grad plus funding. At my school, the positive impact and access created by the Grad plus loan program is illustrative.

More than one fourth of our 7,000 students at University of the Pacific are funding their professional and graduate school education through Grad plus loans, and the overwhelming majority of those are in schools such as the Arthur A. De Goni School of Dentistry, the Thomas J.

Long School of Pharmacy, the School of Health Sciences, which includes nursing, physician assistance, social work, clinical nutrition and many other health care programs. Since the federal legislation eliminating grad plus was signed into law on July 4, universities like Pacific have been scrambling to seek solutions for students who want to enroll in these critically needed programs.

Some of the gap can be made up with unsubsidized federal graduate student loans, but those are capped at $50,000 a year for professional programs and 20,000 for non professional graduate degree programs. Meanwhile, there is debate on the definitions to determine which categories each program falls into. Nevertheless, the gap will be severe.

An analysis by the Post Secondary Education and Economics Research center at American University concluded that even with the unsubsidized federal loans, 38% of professional program students would have to borrow more money. The commercial lending markets, like universities, also have been scrambling to see how they can meet this new and enormous financial need.

But the major lenders do not anticipate having new loan models ready for at least another month or two. Meanwhile, applications to health care and other professional degree programs are are flowing in to universities across California and around the country, with students uncertain how they will pay for that education.

On the good news front, major lenders have told us that, according to their early analysis, many professional school students will be eligible for their commercial loans based on credit worthiness.

But the lenders also said that for another population, those with lower credit scores, universities will be required to pay some percentage to the lenders in a risk share model. Pacific and other universities are preparing to do exactly that, although the risk share models have yet to be solidified by the commercial lenders.

The biggest problem, however, is for the students with the lowest credit worthiness. We are being told that for those students, there simply is no eligible loans for them, even if universities are willing to share in the risk of those loans.

Right now, Pacific and other schools have no solution for that group of deserving future health care professionals, despite the state's own budget challenges. We hope the state will step in to help California universities meet this challenge in order to ensure a robust, diverse workforce in these critical health care fields and beyond.

Thank you very much for your time and attention.

Thank you so much. Welcome.

Sure. Chairman Fong Members Jackson and Patel. Chris Ferguson, Executive Vice Chancellor of Finance and Strategic Initiatives for the California Community College Chancellor's Office So we're in a bit of a different position, but the impacts to our system nonetheless are are notable.

Roughly 3% of our overall revenues for our system are generated in any given year from federal grants, federal programming, with another 2 billion on top of that in federal financial aid, federal loans, federal work study funds.

So for our institutions, what we've been seeing the vast majority of impacts are around services, services that are rendered to students from grants supported by Hispanic serving institutions, from grants for minority serving institutions. For those Anafisi grants.

The the worry around whether we will be able to provide services through our TRIO programs if those grants are suspended or removed. So we've seen a lot of impact around the uncertainty of what to plan for what we can offer our students on any given day and what our students are opting to do as a result.

Will they be able to continue their academic journey? Will they be able to afford that academic journey? But overall, we're also viewing it as an opportunity to serve more students. So as we think about the work requirements in CalFresh and CalWORKS, we think about that as an opportunity to serve more to support economic mobility in our system.

As we think about Workforce Pell grants, we think about it as an opportunity to Eng more adults in coming back to our system to seek out better opportunity and better economic mobility.

As we think about, you know, some of those impacts, the Legislature and we are very thankful to the state for a $601,000,001 time block grant that has helped us navigate these waters and focus on the services that our students need. So we're in a bit of a different position as a system now.

Nonetheless, those impacts are real. So as you're planning at a community college campus, you have to plan as if you won't receive those funds or they may not be available mid year. You have to plan to have difficult discussions with staff who may be impacted by the cancellation or termination of a grant.

We have to plan for those conversations with students that are looking to us to say, how do we navigate these waters in these uncertain times? But just to give you some background, in terms of impacts from HSI grants, we expect roughly 60 million in impacts between HSI, MSI and Aanapisi grants over the next five years.

That doesn't include the likelihood that had the programs been sustained, that new grants would have been provided to our system each year. They'd average around 35 million a year. That total doesn't reflect that. We also know that our TRIO programs receive around 60 million each year statewide. Our Perkins program is around 60 million statewide each year.

Our federal financial aid is 2 billion. Of course, and to give you some context, in terms of the numbers of colleges that have, you know, HSI designations, just under 100. So 99 of our campuses have an HSI designation, 49 have an MSI designation. We know 12 are Aanapisi colleges.

So we know that there are direct impacts from the federal resources. We will do our best to navigate the need for services for our students. We are going to focus on the opportunities that are presenting itself to help lift up economic mobility for the students of California, for our campuses, for our communities.

We also know that we're fortunate to have the Proposition 98 guarantee supporting our community colleges, which helps mitigate some of those uncertainties for our campuses.

That said, we're constantly ready to partner with our other segments of education in the state, whether that's K12, the University of California, California State University, our independent institutions, to meet that need of how can we best serve California? How can we get the best economic mobility for our citizenry?

And ultimately, how can we best navigate these uncertain times? Uncertainty is the real issue, but we'll get through it together. And just appreciate your time today. Thank you so much. Welcome.

Good morning. Thank you so much. Chairman Fong, Dr. Patel, Dr. Jackson. I believe this is the third or fourth time I've had the opportunity to talk to you about our relationship with Federal Government. And I continue to be personally very grateful for your interest and your support. It really actually matters a great deal to us.

My name is Katherine Newman. I am the provost of the University of California.

Our Partnership with the Federal Government has been for decades both enduring and vital to educating the next generation of the workforce, for expanding economic opportunity here in California, for for fostering innovation around which so much of our state economy depends, and for advancing medicine and technology in the United States and around the world.

This sustained federal investment in research, in financial aid and in infrastructure has powered scientific breakthroughs. It has strengthened the state's workforce. It has increased our productivity and market dominance of many leading industries in this state. And I think it's fair to say it has enhanced the prosperity and well being of our entire society.

Unfortunately, as you've heard from my colleagues today, the UC system, along with our fellow segments here in California and colleges and universities around the country, is confronting one of the most significant disruptions in our entire history.

For public research universities with academic health centers like UC, major shifts in federal funding priorities, including support for our vital research and health care programs, has put the very foundation of our University at risk. In this deeply challenging moment for the University.

We are incredibly grateful for the state's lawmakers and elected leaders for your support, your advocacy and our partnership. My mission today is to convey the scale of the funding challenges that the University faces as a result of these federal actions. The University of California currently receives, get ready, more than 17 billion.

That's with AB $17 billion each year in federal support. That includes $9.9 billion in Medicare and Medicaid funding, 5.7 billion for research and support programs, and 1.7 billion in student financial aid.

As my President James Milliken explained in a letter to the UC community recently, a substantial loss of this federal funding would be devastating for our mission and for the people who depend on us most.

It will mean fewer classes and student services, reduced access to health care, tens of thousands of lost jobs across the state, and an exodus of world class faculty and researchers to other states and countries. More than 1,600 federal research grants across the UC were suspended, canceled or delayed over the course of this year.

Some of them have been reinstated. But these grants represent a potential loss exceeding $1 billion in research funding. Through action in the courts. Over 1,200 awards representing more than 780 million have been restored. But these decisions are under appeal by the Federal Government and they remain vulnerable to further federal actions.

Over 400 awards remain suspended or terminated, totaling more than 230 million in unspent funds for research that has been halted.

UC's 5.7 billion in annual research and program support portfolios faces growing risks from new and potential federal policies, including reduced reimbursement of indirect costs that are vital to maintaining the University's research infrastructure new limits on application submissions and possible additional cuts to research programs deemed outside of the Trump administration's priorities.

Inside hours, however, These developments threaten UC's capacity to drive breakthroughs in Alzheimer's and cancer research, cardiovascular and mental health disparities, diabetes, obesity and autism studies as well as innovations in climate, energy, agriculture and national defense. Cuts to UC's research grants will also lead to direct harm to California's economy.

These funds support tens of thousands of jobs across the state and they bolster the economy through the purchases, contracts, patents, startup businesses, product development and more. It's really hard to overstate the seriousness of this State of affairs.

The chilling effect of these federal decisions extend far, far beyond our campuses, leading to fewer research opportunities for students in all fields, including in STEM and in the health sciences, reduced faculty retention and lower research output delays in medical and technological innovation that serve Californians and the nation I also want to draw your attention to the U.S. Department of Education's decision, as was echoed by my colleagues, to end approximately $350 million in funding for key Minority serving institution programs nationally, including for Hispanic serving institutions or HSIs, Asian American, Native American, Pacific Islander Serving Institutions and APISI Grant and Grant programs.

All nine undergraduate serving UC campuses are federally designated Aanapisi's and five also hold the HSI designation. That's UC Irvine, Merced, Riverside, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz.

For UC alone, this represents more than $12 million that would have supported services, programs and resources to provide opportunities to for California students, including the 40% of our undergraduates who are the first generation in their families to go to college. UC continues to comply completely with state and federal non discrimination law, including especially Proposition 209.

However, without these funds, programs that help all students persist, graduate and enter the workforce are now at risk. Upon the termination of these grants, the University has been actively coordinating with campus leaders and national partners to seek clarity, assess the impacts and advocate for our resources.

Our campus leaders are working overnight to identify and reallocate internal resources to sustain the work that was in progress and identify whatever bridge funding we can provide so that these services can continue to support student success and as intended. But this is not a simple matter under these budget conditions.

I want also to point out that the federal One Big Beautiful Bill has also reduced or eliminated key financial supports for students at UC. You've already heard about this from my colleagues.

The graduate plus loan program relied on by more than 7,000 UC graduate students is being phased out, which will make graduate education far less accessible for low income and first generation students. In addition, undergraduates enrolled less than full time will see reductions in loan eligibility, jeopardizing affordability for students who must balance work, caregiving or health needs.

These changes essentially reduce how much students, especially those at the graduate and professional level, can borrow, and they may make it more challenging for them to repay their loans. UC is very proud that with your help, our students borrow far, far less than the national average.

Nonetheless, these changes shift the cost of attendance from the Federal Government to students and their families at a time when affordability is already a challenge for many students. We deeply appreciate the State of California's long standing partnership and shared investment in higher education. Given the federal retreat, we are asking our state leaders to consider the following priorities.

First, supporting bond funds in research and capital outlay and the inclusion of the University of California in the housing bond.

Capital outlay and housing bond funds can provide critically needed resources to our campuses and research funding provides the opportunity to sustain crucial research programs that lost federal support, particularly as I said before, in health, climate and technology fields that are vital to California's future. Sharing your support for UC's total research costs, including direct and indirect costs.

Without these funds, the University research capacity will shrink dramatically. Supporting SB607, the California Science and Health Research Bond act, and other legislation that would Fund research in California Critical to us Supporting partnerships between the University and state agencies to co Fund research with very high public value.

For instance, the work we've done on wildfire resilience, on water security, on renewable energy and in public health. Finally, we would be ever grateful for your continued advocacy at the state level so to support the University's budget and at the federal level to restore full funding and preserve the Independence of Public Higher education.

Let me end by promising you that the University of California remains steadfast in our mission to educate our students and build future leaders to conduct research that improves communities and saves lives and to serve the people of California.

Federal actions have shaken the foundations of that mission, but with your support we are rising to meet this moment and we are deeply committed to supporting our students, faculty and community Members. Thank you Chair Fung, and all of you for your continued leadership and partnership. Happy to answer your questions.

Thank you so much, each of our segments for your powerful testimony here today. I'll ask a few questions and then I'll pass it over to my colleagues for additional comments and questions. First question I had is we heard from the community college segment saying that MSI is that's about $60 million.

And then with the UC, thank you to our Vice Chancellor Neiman mentioned $12 million. I don't know. Not sure if I heard the number from the CSU. Do you have a guesstimate as to the impact in terms of the MSI and the PZ?

Yes. The total number of grants was 218 for approximately 161 million. In terms of the MSI grants, we'll lose 43 million MSI grants spread at 19 of our 22 universities.

Okay. Thank you. And thank you to our presentation from the UC system in terms of the partnerships and how we can partner as a as a state on the number of things that you had proposed out there.

I want to put out to the rest of the segments if you had any thoughts or any comments as to that in terms of how we can partner.

Certainly at our level, you know, partnerships around enhanced transfer or enhanced ability for students. At our four year partners that want to take a course through our system, we have robust fee waivers, we have robust tuition free access to numerous Californians.

So we can definitely partner in that aspect and make sure that our courses remain available to all students, irrespective of where they show up. I would also say in terms of partnership, and I think all of our partners at the table share this.

Our state laws have not changed, our state regulations have not changed, and interstate focus has not changed. And remaining steadfast in having that message across our segments, across our systems, across all of our educational entities remains critical in understanding that our mission has not changed.

Our need to partner and work together has not changed, our need for dual enrollment. And to start the process of saying college is for you, college can be affordable, that helps as well. Right? So for every course that a student starts with it's savings to that student.

Thank you, Vice Chancellor Ferguson.

So learning very much about intersegmental efforts and so understand there's a new high level group which is forming its membership now having been in the same role at the UNC system.

One of the things we did look at in addition, and I'm excited to learn more about your work in the intersegmental spaces, shall we say, as you were saying, is an opportunity, quite frankly, with the new CSU Forward strategic plan to look at, I guess what I would call going off script intra segmental opportunities in a way like never before.

Absolutely. I'm glad you uplifted that intersegmental and intersegmental opportunities and glad we were able to get 1,098 and SB638 done last year in partnership with my colleagues. So thank you. And the final question I had is a number you touched upon this as well.

But I wanted to dive deeper in this is that as we heard, the changes in the one Big Beautiful Bill has made a tremendous impact in our decreased academic opportunities mentioned the academic job losses, a shift in the total cost of attendance towards students and their families and the effect on the Grad plus programs and a number of the funding streams there.

In terms of the changes in the federal borrowing amounts and the Pell Grant dispersals and access to snap and CalFresh benefits, how is the total impact impacting our students, our faculty and staff at the various segments? So any thoughts on that?

Well, speaking for the UC system, I would say that this introduced a degree of instability and insecurity that was almost unparalleled and we may ultimately recover some of this, but the shaking in between has been quite consequential. You know, our students are very carefully planning their future and trying to.

And their families are trying to figure out how they pay for their living expenses and when something as important as CalFresh just disappears. And now they're going to be asked to reapply for SNAP benefits, which we know is highly problematic for many.

It's the insecurity and yo yo nature of the Federal Government's rollout that has been so difficult. We have done, as my colleagues have, as much as we can to bridge those consequences by amping up our food banks and providing as much as we can for our students.

But it's been a very insecure period and one that has shaken the foundations of our belief in what we can count on for the Federal Government. And that, I think, is really very troubling.

Thank you. I would add the loans in particular, I think for many of these programs, they'll still have cohorts coming in, but they'll look very different. They'll look much more homogenous socioeconomically.

And I think across California, but particularly in places like the Central Valley, which is already suffering so much in terms of a lack of health care professionals, I think that's where the real impact is going to be. And that's an impact that is just going to start.

Thank you for that context question. Vice Chancellor.

But if there's not a solution, we'll be living with that for generations.

I would say, at least from the MSI grants that I know about and ones that I've actually had in the past, those offer a real opportunity to test, quite frankly, new academic supports and combinations of things to help students move along and progress.

I think without those grants, looking at those new models, one, for example, at Northridge, involved exposing students and faculty to using new immersive technologies like VR, et cetera, and the preparation for careers. You know, all of that gets taken away. Thank you, sir.

Ferguson. Yeah. For our system, roughly 93 million is in unsubsidized federal loans, around 75 million in subsidized federal loans. So it's not a high percentage of what students are borrowing, but it is a meaningful amount.

What I can say on the CalFresh front, we do have a demonstration project that we've begun between the Department of Social Services and ourselves to help with data transfer and data awareness so that we can ensure that every student that we're serving that is eligible for CalFresh is able to do that.

It's only at a couple of districts right now or a couple of counties right now. But our intent is to have a proof case and then take it system wide over time. So we're certainly working on those aspects.

Additionally, we've reminded all of our districts that they're restricted lottery funds and there's a notable balance there can be used to support housing assistance and food assistance grants to students as well as we've had our foundation begin a fundraising campaign to make sure that we have resources to provide grants to students who may be negatively impacted on that CalFresh or that housing front.

Thank you so much, Vice Chancellor Ferguson, and to all of you, I'd like to open up to my colleagues for questions or comments.

Summer Patel, thank you so much. I want to thank the panelists for being very judicious with their budgeted time. You each had seven minutes to present and you seem to make distill the highlights of your concerns, which are vast, into that seven minute time period. And I find that very remarkable. So thank you for that.

I have a couple questions. I'm going to take it in a slightly different direction also. But first of all, going to the loan conversation, I have seen that the process, or read that the process is shifting from the U.S. Department of Education to the Small Business Administration.

Have you guys received any information on what that process, that plan, have you had any training? There's going to be cost to that training. There's going to be time delays in that development of a new process. Do we know anything about what that looks like?

I am sorry to say that the upheaval in Washington, the loss of so many federal workers has meant it can be difficult to get anybody on the phone on the other end. And if you can get them exactly what their responsibilities are now may be somewhat difficult to determine.

So I think it's going to take a while before we have effective means of reaching the people that we need to reach. In addition, some of the regulations haven't really been written yet, right? So we're told that something's been terminated, but not exactly what's going to take its place.

And I guess I fear for all of us that when those regulations are settled, it'll be very late in the game and that makes it really hard for us to plan and hard for our students to plan. And that's true.

For example, in Medicaid funding those rules won't even be written until next spring and very little time left to adjust to their consequences. For our health centers, that's really quite consequential. So I'm sure It varies from one agency to another, but in many of these agencies, two thirds or more of the people have been fired.

Yeah, it's quite the challenge. Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah. Now, I was just going to underscore the provost, very good point. She was being quite literal when she says nobody answers the phone. It's. Nobody answers the phone. I mean, it's. It is. To say there's a slight lack of communications would not quite cover the depth of the concerns.

I think some of the intent from the Federal Government was to create efficiencies. And instead what we're seeing is massive inefficiencies and increased bureaucratic paperwork and red tape to delivering for our constituents. We talk about affordability all the time in California nowadays. We'd see the rising cost of everything.

Seems like there's a chokehold on the ability of young people. You know, how they're going to be able to access their affordability dreams. Frankly, they can't get a loan. There's not going to be work for them. They have trouble accessing health care and food. It just seems like we're surrounding them with challenges.

And frankly, that's going to be surrounding our future with challenges. Another question I have looking at indirect cost cap. I was a former research scientist. I was able to successfully complete my PhD at UC Irvine thanks to NIH grant funding. And I know that the equipment I used was very expensive. The reagents I used were very expensive.

But also we had staff supporting our work. We had the librarian reviewing our papers to make sure they fit the margins when we did everything properly. So overhead costs are real. And now they're being capped at 20% higher. How is the system between private universities, CSUs, UCs gonna manage to bridge that gap?

Well, that is the $65 million question, isn't it? As, you know, a billion, we typically, you know, across our universities, we have a range. We have had a range of F and a cost usually from around 50% to 65%.

And that has been an enduring partnership with the Federal Government that's built the most brilliant bottom biotechnology system in the world. And they're now talking in terms of 15%, which would be catastrophic for us. I mean, really not possible.

There have been various efforts to create new potential plans that would include putting more into direct costs and less into indirect costs. But none of that's been settled. And actually, I haven't heard anything about that lately. Meanwhile, the budgets of nsf, Nih, doe, they've all been slashed.

And these are critical sources for research support for The University of California. So we are working very assiduously to look at how we can combine forces across our campuses where that's possible in sustaining core facilities. It's not possible for everything, that's for sure. Animal research, for example, is very difficult to do that way.

But there may be some other things where we can combine forces. We're just at the beginning of trying to assess whether that's really realistic. And my guess is it probably isn't in many instances. But we will try. We will try to become as efficient as we can be.

We will make every effort to see whether we can support local business in access to these facilities, which is what we do in some other states. But overall, I don't really have an answer to your question.

And I fear that the real answer will be, without some basic relief here, a shrinkage in California's research prowess, which it is uniquely successful in. And that's a worry for the whole state, which is why we're so grateful for the attention through the bond enterprise, for the possibilities to support this work.

It's not just for us, it's for everyone.

Certainly, as goes California's economy, the US Economy will follow very rapidly behind that.

That is true.

So investing in California's future benefits, not only the US but the whole world, frankly. So I appreciate you. I don't think I necessarily expected the pinpointed answer on that, but to highlight that this is another one of the many challenges that you're struggling with within the University systems.

Another question I have is when we're looking at costs and bureaucratic costs, an increase in bureaucracy and overhead and indirect costs, H1B hiring, which bear with me, I know that the UCs may be average as a system, around 4,000 something H1B visa holders, that may seem like a lot to people.

4000 is a large number, but compared to the total employee population, the system, it's a very small fraction. The CSU is also employ maybe as a system, maybe 1,000, something like that, H1B visa holders to make progress towards research and innovation. And the new costs around those applicants, is that considered an indirect cost or a direct cost?

Well, it's never been put on grants before. I mean, it's never been factored into grants. It was because, of course, we didn't have a charge of $100,000 for an H1B visa holder.

I think the future impact of this is yet to be determined, but it will limit our ability to attract the best and brightest, not only in terms of mature workers who want to join our industries, but the graduate students who come here to be trained, who hope to go into optional tactical training and then onto an H1B, the likelihood of being able to continue that flow of the best talent all around the world is definitely compromised.

Yeah, I see. Kind of a multiple direction whammy. I was going to say triple, but I think it's bigger than that.

We're not only disinvesting in our youngest learners, in our preschool programs at the federal level, but we're making it harder for students to borrow money, making it harder for families to send their kids to school, and then we're making it harder for the State of California to recruit and retain the best talent possible.

It almost feels like sabotage. And perhaps there are those out there that would say it is sabotage, but it definitely feels orchestrated and very intentional. So I applaud you for your efforts. I know you're working around the clock to try to figure out how to bridge all these gaps.

I am definitely very concerned about the future of California with all these constraints being thrown upon us. And I know that we have some of the brightest people in the room working on those challenges. So thank you. Our future depends on it. We're relying on you.

And I look forward to finding ways to partner, whether that's through tackling housing issues on campuses, looking at ways to help support nutrition, welfare services for our students and our staff as they struggle through these challenges.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Patel, Samara Jackson.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair. Thank you to all of you who have laid out what we are up against and the ripple effects that that causes. Obviously, I got my master's and doctorate in social work here in California and through graduate loans.

And I won't say how much, but because I want to keep the day in a happier setting.

But I would say this, that particularly those of us who also are in charge of the various social safety net programs here in California, on the various other committees that we have, we always hear about, even if we had the money to Fund the programs, the workers are not there.

And so when we talk about our therapists, when we talk about our social workers, when we talk about our teachers, when we talk about our nurses, our physicians, and it keeps going no matter what profession you look at. And certainly depending on the profession, many of you are the leading pipeline for many of those professions. Talk about.

Can you talk a little bit more about the workforce impacts that you see that not only California, but of course the nation will face, simply because we don't, are not providing the financial Assistance for them to get the training necessary. Would any of you like to talk more about that?

Well, I'll echo what my colleagues have said about grant plus loans and parent loans as well as the cap around Pell. Right. Particularly for students who attend the CSU, as you know, they are in need over 60%. You'll hear this soon.

I think with a new economic impact report are able to graduate debt free and over that percentage also get financial aid. So the ability, how do I put it, Sometimes a small amount of money makes a big difference for our students as it did for me long, long ago. So that's some of the worry.

And then you look at the pipelines of truly heterogeneous group of students, not just by race, ethnicity, economics and otherwise international status.

As you start shrinking or slowing those pipelines, not only do you impact the workforce in high need areas like nursing or teachers, et cetera, like the LA Grant I mentioned, you know, is cutting off the cohorts of urban teachers in three areas of need.

It's pretty tough to figure out how exactly without finding new pots of money to take care of that. And I'm not sure, as the provost said, with impending changes in Medicaid, I'm trained as a physician long ago. How that then is going to drive the workforce demands, much less meeting everybody daily health care needs.

So I wish I had an answer.

And Dr. Jackson, I would just answer that on two fronts. One is do we believe, do I believe that there's going to be fewer social workers, counseling psychologists and pharmacists because of the elimination of the grab plus Logan. Yes, I do. Areas that there are already shortages as you, as you noted.

And then secondly, in other professions they may very well be just as many doctors and dentists and the like, but they're going to look very different. They're going to look very, very different. You're going to have very few first generation students, very few students coming up from much more modest means.

So it's to me it's a dual impact on the workforce.

Thank you.

Yeah, I think for the system we're going to do all that we can to continue serving every student that shows up, providing them full access to any course they need to complete their academic journey and ultimately enter into a good paying job.

You know, hopefully it's stackable so that they can continue either within our system or into other systems of education. But as the open access system, you know, we're there to support our workforce needs. We have a specific focus within our Vision 2030 goals around making sure that we're getting our students into good paying positions.

So that remains a commitment of our system. But I do look at, say, the population pyramid in California was already flattening or inverting slightly. And that meant that we were going to see a constrained workforce to begin with.

And this will only make it even that much more challenging to see that we have the workforce that we need.

We'll have to be as efficient as we possibly can in serving students and getting them into those stackable opportunities, in trying to get returning adults back into the system and help them see themselves through to completion as well.

But we are, you know, as our system, we will do all that we can to serve as many or our chancellor has a stated goal of trying to get to 3 million students of enrollment. We're at about 2.2 right now, a little over. We finally achieved that. We're back above 2.2 million student headcount.

But the way that we see we power California's, you know, economic engine is workforce development. And the more students we can serve, the more we will. Will you look for those outcomes? We'll continue to partner for those stackable opportunities and certainly, you know, want to see that we have the workforce that's needed.

But I agree it is a very, very concerning environment. Just before this hearing, talking with one of my colleagues at the CSU around, what will this mean for the professoriate, for our ability to continue educating that workforce that we need?

Given the challenge, the challenges that we see in Graduate plus loans and those reverberate through all of our systems of education.

I would just echo the point that California has been blessed with an amazing social mobility machine. Higher education is the key to realizing the dreams of our people. If we can't serve that need, it's not that we won't have plenty of people banging on our door.

We have a surplus of people who would like to come to the University of California. But our ability to serve the whole population and to make sure that we actually mirror the composition of the state that we live in, that's what's going to be impacted. And that has huge consequences. Economic consequences, social consequences.

Consequences in people's confidence and belief in the, in the social mobility options that have defined the country. So what I worry about more than anything is not will we not have enough people, it's will we be able to serve the diversity of people who live here in California? And that I do think is under grave threat.

You know, when we start talking about diversity, I mean, obviously many of you have had or even standing up. A lot of the retention and graduation focus on particular populations. I know, particularly in terms of the African American student population.

I mean, obviously community colleges, UMOJA programs have been an essential part of ensuring that African Americans are not only are admitted, but retained. And then graduation rates is also important.

I know the Kelsey CSU system with this African American retention and support programs, through the fantastic work of Dr. Parham out of CSU Dominguez Hills has also been proven to. And I know that's just now being standed up in the various throughout the systems. How is that affecting those type of programs that you're seeing?

I mean, UC Riverside is one of the best places to go for African American students in terms of graduation rates. And so, I mean, how do you see that affecting those type of programs? That, I mean, we always get caught up in the enrollment piece, which is important.

But the idea is once they get there, there's still work to be done. And so are you going to. Are we going to see some ramification when it comes to those programs as well?

On the completion side, you know, many of the MSI grants and also the NSF HSI grants, in terms of focusing on certain populations for STEM preparedness, et cetera, are going to suffer for sure.

And I don't know all of the grants that were lost, but having had some of them in the past, they are meant to bolster academic success, as I said, whether it's adding an additional cohort of professional advisors because you have need, or tailoring certain programs to work with either example, African American males.

A grant I had where I came from, particularly in stem, because they were not moving in the way that you'd want to. So I'm pretty confident we could go through all the grants and say, yes, we think these groups will be affected because of the specific programming.

And then there's the TRIO grants, right, for high school and middle school students, which are gone to feed the pipeline.

And that, I think is one of the gravest worries that we have. We want every student to join us, study effectively, graduate on time, limit their debt. That's a goal we have for absolutely everyone. But many of our outreach programs and support programs are coming under a withering attack.

And I'm not sure that they'll survive these kinds of challenges, both financially and just in terms of absolute policy attacks on their conceptual value. In the end, it benefits all of us when all of our students do well. And it doesn't help anybody if any group or variety of student doesn't succeed.

And we are absolutely devoted to that mission, but our ability to serve students with particular needs has definitely been impacted by the Federal Government basically zeroing out these programs.

Yeah, certainly there are impacts within our system as well. Again, we're fortunate and thank you. Can't say thank you enough for that $60 million support block grant to help us navigate those waters.

But from our perspective, you know, I would just add that our support for UMOJA programs for Puente programs for DREAM Resource Liaisons for Amendment remains unwavering at the system level and from every campus President that I've talked to remains unwavering at the campus level as well.

Our system request this year includes ask for additional supports above and beyond what we're doing today in those programs to continue providing those services to students. So critical. We have so many champions in our system.

You know, whether that's Dr. Keith Curry at Compton College, absolute champion, whether that's, you know, Dr. Luke Wood at Sac State, with the recent establishment of the Black Honors College, just have to say, you know, thank you to their work.

Thank you for continuing to focus on what our state laws guide you to do and really what our system goals ask of our campuses. We remain steadfast in our support of our students across the board.

And I've made it clear on behalf of the chancellor's office to our system partners, if you do pull back and our program requires you to focus on a particular aspect, you can bet that you're going to get a call from me saying, excuse me, that's a condition of funding. You need to do that.

I mean, certainly we're also talking about those who are facing, you know, English as a second language. We're talking about also students with various disabilities that also need the assistance.

To making sure that they are able to meet their needs. Right. The idea is that these type of funds really just say, does everyone have the support that they need to be able to reach their academic goals? Right.

I would say also I think I wanted to point out, I mean, obviously certainly the UC system who is also a key provider in many communities of medical services.

Absolutely.

I was. Yes. Just last week I was at UC San Francisco meeting with some of my key advisors that I rely on in terms of my position on the budget.

When it comes to things like food insecurity, when it comes to the aging population, when it comes to all those type of things, Many times people will not recognize that the issues of Medicare and Medicaid are also issues. Can you do a little deeper dive on issues of the Medicare, Medicaid?

It seems funny to talk about this in a Higher Education Committee, but also, but obviously UCs are, and institutions like USC and other private universities are also providers of a lot of community hospitals, community clinics. San Francisco case, the county's hospital is run by physicians and others from UC. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Yes. We have, as you know, five academic medical centers throughout the state and we are very proud of what they are able to do, both in terms of outstanding research, but also in patient care.

I think we offer something like 10, or maybe it's above 10% of the patient care needs in California, but a disproportionate number of people who are receiving public benefits like Medicaid. This is what worries me about the Medicaid qualifying process that's coming up, which will require work certification every six months that is designed to restrict the rolls.

And our hospitals will definitely suffer if those roles drop. And I think in general across the country we will see the rates for insurance for people who are in private insurance grow because we don't deny people medical care. And so those costs will shunt over to the private health care system. So it's very, very troubling.

And we are absolutely devoted to providing for the health care of this state. But that has depended on a historic relationship with the Federal Government. That's where that those reimbursements come from. And that's been hit very hard. And it's going to continue. It's clear that that's going to continue for some time to come.

And I'm sure that will become a very serious political question in time, if it isn't right now.

But our mission is to provide the first class health care not only in vibrant cities like San Francisco, but in The Inland Empire in the San Joaquin Valley, where very often healthcare provided by the University is the only health care available. And we've been looking to expand that to try to serve more areas of California.

That's very difficult to do under these circumstances, but it is part of our mission. And I guess I would say every piece of the segmental world up here has its own vital mission that's part of our vital mission. And so we grieve when we have any impediments to realizing that mission.

You know, I hear many, many times, not only here in this Capitol, but also through the Administration about it is only our job to create equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.

And I think that even if you agree with that premise, that what the Administration is doing even prevents equal opportunity, we're not even talking about equal outcomes right now. But we are creating while we have a historic income inequality, you're also having a historic equal unequal opportunities. And this will deepen that.

We are choosing who's winners and losers. And the less income you have and the darker your skin color, the less opportunity you will have here, not only in this state, but also in this nation.

And so we have got to make it clear to people that we are creating a new upper class here through what we're seeing through HR1. You guys say it's a Big Beautiful Bill. I know that's the official name, but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and this baby is ugly.

And so thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you so much. Assembly Memeber Jackson, thank you colleagues for your comments and insights and feedback and questions. And thank you so much to all our panelists as well for answering the questions and presentations with candor.

Really appreciate your overview of how the loss of funding and changes at the federal level are impacting our respective systems as a whole. And I really appreciate your comments here today and look forward to continue conversations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

At this time we'll be moving to our next panel, the impact of the Federal Government on Equitable Access. And thank you so much again to our first panel. Joining us for our second panel are Dr. Daisy Gonzalez, Executive Director of the California Student Aid Commission, the Chancellor of the LA Community College District, Dr. Alberto Jay Roman.

Christian Sor is President of the Association of Independent California colleges and universities, Dr. Elizabeth Boyd, Chair of the CSU System Wide Academic Senate, and Dr. Sirian Villavicencio, Professor and co chair of the Department of Social Science at San Joaquin Delta College. Thank you so much.

To this panel here you'll each have seven minutes and ask you that you present on the order listed in the agenda. And please begin when you're ready. Welcome.

Good afternoon. Chair Fong, Member Jackson, Assembly Member Patel, distinguished Committee staff. Thank you for this opportunity. Thank you for hosting this hearing. And now this panel makes a lot of sense. My hope is I get to bring you some light, some opportunity. One, because that is what California is.

You are a beacon of hope and you have done that when you invested in the middle of major federal reductions last year in financial aid. You invested $3.9 billion of California's money to make sure that we could increase opportunity, unlock potential for every student in this state. And yet there is a lot of unfinished work.

The $3.9 billion that you invested were to fund Cal Grant, the Middle Class Scholarship, the Golden State Teacher Grant program, as well as the Dreamer Service Incentive Grant across this state. Now, what is the unfinished work? There is a lot of unfinished work when we look at California as a whole.

So Assembly Member Jackson, you were talking about equal opportunity. That is exactly what is the opportunity in front of us here in California. There is no other state that believes that students with dependent should be successful. That's what you've done when you adopted a $6,000 supplement for students with dependents in our state.

Yet when I look at the landscape, I look at it from a systemic level. Every single segment in the state and systematically what does that mean for every single student? The last panel eloquently shared multiple challenges that have been faced by students and institutions this year alone.

And I'll just mention three more and then head straight into the solutions. The first is the ongoing challenges of California's undocumented and immigrant families. As a result, fewer and fewer students are applying for the California Dream act application year after year. Second, the elimination and capping of student loans negatively impacts all workforce fields and in particular veterans.

There is a policy that was adopted, the 90/10 rule, which will now place veterans at higher risk here in our state, particularly when we deal with for profit institutions. And lastly, the interconnected reality of higher education doesn't matter what population or what segment you are looking at. And that is the intersectionality of reductions and freezes which assemble.

Member Jackson, you already highlighted here today to Health and Human Services the negative impacts of underrepresented students who are now having to navigate red reductions and freezes for the Chafee grant.

These are foster youth, including the elimination of Chafee for undocumented foster youth who were unaccompanied minors at 1.0 as well as freezes for not just SNAP, but Medicaid, as well as declines and reductions. Now, I promised you solutions and that's how I choose to see the world.

Because there's always the next first thing we're going to do. And then there's California's reality. We navigate what we can afford today, we build for the future, and we create the pipeline for the majority of Californians in our state. We should be worried at the same time resolute about what we can do today.

And so for me, I look at the world through multiple lenses. There's 2.2 million students who alone applied for financial aid last year across all segments of higher education. 2.2 million. That is up 11% for the class of 2025.

Even though all of this was happening in our world, California students and families still believe that higher education is the solution that should inspire all of us and it should also validate all the work that you have done here in California.

I see that when I look at how you are solving the problem and I just want to highlight some opportunities. The first is in the area of access. How do we unlock potential here in California? You won't be surprised that I will say that the solution is financial aid. It is the front door to higher education.

It is how you make the solution both systematic and a part of the systemic work that needs to happen.

And unlocking potential, you have an opportunity with Senate Bill 323, which at this point in time provides every single Californian who is not able to access the FAFSA, the federal application, to be able to complete and at least qualify for California's financial aid. These include students such as incarcerated Californians.

And I want to thank the University of California, Irvine, UCI students there who are currently incarcerated who brought this to our attention. It also includes English as a Second Language learners who right now cannot get access to support. When they call our federal call center mixed status families, as well as students with disabilities.

Many of the resources that families were used to are no longer there, including call centers or interpretation or materials in multiple languages. You could also encourage interconnected systems. Already in this hearing you heard that Californians will have to reapply for SNAP.

There is a faster way, an expedited way, and that is by integrating CalFresh into CSAC system, our web grant system. We've already done that with Cal Kids, and In the first 30 days, Cal Kids saw a 17% increase in students that were matched here in California. Now why is that?

It's because CSAC already has all of the information. So why do we keep asking the same people that are already poor who are in need for additional information when we already have it? The third one is to design state on ramps to financial aid.

You have an incredible opportunity with Workforce Pell, one of the few glimmers of hope here in California and for higher segments. You have a program already, the Cal Grant C program, that could be reimagined.

Now, I don't have a solution in mind yet, but I would love to work with you because it should operate as an on ramp here in California so that California's higher education institutions can maximize Workforce Pell.

When you think about removing barriers and equitable outcomes and removing barriers, you have a very clear solution in front of you and that is funding Cal Grant reform. Now, we all know that state funds are very limited, but I will share with you that age is the number one barrier.

It doesn't matter what type of student you are looking at to qualify for Cal Grant. Age is a barrier. It's a barrier for transfer students. It's a barrier for students who are already adult learners and they should be rewarded for transferring.

When we think about equitable access across every region, you could consider creating a regional innovation grant to make sure that students and families have access to outreach materials and support so they could not just one, apply for the aid that they're eligible for, but to be supported so that they can actually receive those paid funds.

And then lastly, investing in the Chafee program. I was that first generation college student, that former foster youth, that Chafee student. You have a program that is already capped here in the state due to federal funds that have been limited.

But you have many more foster youth who are graduating who would love an opportunity to pursue their higher education. I'll end my remarks by just sharing that you have the answers because you've been doing the hard work and so many Californians and students depend on you. You did it again last year.

You have the Golden State Teacher Grant program which you funded one time. The majority of the students that benefit are actually in AICCU institutions. That is the future of teachers in this state and that's the potential of the Golden State Teacher Grant Program. I want to thank you for this opportunity.

I want to thank you and just say that the California Student Aid Commission stands ready to support you. I will be leaving a survey with you because you don't need any more evidence. You have the next panel of students who will share what's really happening on the ground.

And I'm leaving the latest survey that we have conducted on student expenses and food and housing insecurity. I don't have money for you. I wish, but instead I brought you a handout.

So the last thing you could do today is partner with us to make sure that we could host a Cash for College event in your community and at least maximize support for the students that you can Fund within existing resources. Thank you.

Chair thank you so much, Dr. Gonzalez, for the robust presentation. I really appreciate all the comments there. Next up, I'd like to welcome Chancellor Roman, the Chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District, California's largest community college district. Welcome.

Thank you so much. Chair Fong, honorable Members of the Committee, Dr. Patel, Dr. Jackson, it's good to see you again. Dr. Alberto Roman, Chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District.

Here on behalf of the District Board of trustees, our nine college presidents, our 9,000 plus employees, and approximately 210,000 students that we serve, we are the largest community college district in the state and in the nation.

I want to touch a little bit on what Dr. Gonzales has already alluded to in terms of some of the impacts of the Federal Administration policies on laccd, certainly the effects of the federal budget cuts on our institutional operations. I imagine these are also things that our entire system is filling.

Touch briefly on the measures that the district is in fact taking to ensure that our campuses are safe and inclusive learning environments. We talked a little bit already about what's going on in our communities, particularly in Los Angeles, and then a series of actions and recommendations that we have for you as policymakers to help maintain equal access.

As Dr. Jackson spoke about earlier, and really, students seeking higher education at our community colleges.

We know for a fact, and it's been stated several times, that federal Administration actions, both formal and I would say informal, have had an impact on low income students, non traditional students, first generation students, undocumented students, foster youth students, and the list goes on.

And even eligible students may feel the risk when applying for college admission or financial aid or when they're interfacing with public institutions. There's real fear right now for our students.

They've shared with us that the heightened federal immigration enforcement, the changes to financial aid messaging, such as the verification requirements and the public charge rules, have generated confusion for them and fear within both our immigrant and our mixed status community. So many families worry that applying for financial aid could jeopardize their immigration status.

So we're closely monitoring whether these students who fully are fully eligible for student services are indeed avoiding these resources due to the concerns that they have about their information being used against them or their families. So that's a real concern for all of our colleges.

This we think could result in fewer FAFSA submissions and indeed ultimately lower enrollment rates. Additionally, we know that our students who relied on DACA for work authorization are uncertain about their safety in applying or renewing their status and this is going to impact their career prospects.

While others question their ability to pursue career pathways that really require employment background checks as colleagues. These are again real fears that we're seeing across our district. And I have been talking to my colleagues across the state. There are real fears that all of our community colleges are seeing.

In summary, I tell you that federal actions could foster an environment of uncertainty that discourages students from college enrollment from seeking support and from completing their education.

So for us as we're talking today about the challenges and opportunities, I think strengthening our state protections and I want to thank this body and the entire state for putting in some protections against the ongoing federal raids that are happening and protections for communication.

We also need to look at access to financial aid and crucial to these are crucial to mitigating negative effects. Let me say this. Federal support is essential for ensuring that our colleges can provide high quality education.

Dr. Gonzalez said that very eloquently earlier workforce training, which is so important for the State of California in the area that I'm in in Los Angeles, and student support services that again Dr. Jackson talked about. So the loss of federal funds will significantly undoubtedly impact student support services.

These are the ones that help close equity gaps by providing counseling, providing transfer advising, tutoring, STEM support, mental health services and career guidance at laccd. Get this. More than half of our students report incomes at or near below the poverty line. More than 50% of our students qualifying them for these crucial support services.

So without the assistance, students face increased barriers to academic success, particularly those from low income or first generation backgrounds. Many vocational and technical programs depend on federal funding for equipment for faculty and for program development. And when we understand that we've had state investments already, we have strong works programs that are important.

We also know that our federal funds like Perkins and related discretional grants help provide the industry standard equipment that we talked about earlier, the work based learning opportunities and the faculty professional development.

So potential cuts to these federal funding streams will lead to reduced course offerings and access outdated resources, fewer hands on training opportunities that directly affect students readiness for the workforce, especially in high demand fields. We've been talking about manufacturing, health care, it, construction, management.

So those are all real potential challenges that we see if we are not able to supplement some of the federal funding. We've talked about tree already. That's a crucial funding source for all of our community colleges. Cuts in federal funding also threaten education access, increased financial stress and raise the risk of higher dropout rates.

Let me just give you a quick sense of what it means for us to lose some of our potential funding. TRIO at LACCD is a significant multi campus program and the recent federal awards list include multiple student services Upward bound projects across the colleges. The loss of TRIO funding for our district alone is about $5 million.

These are the projects and these are the programs that are impacting the lowest socioeconomic, underserved, historically marginalized communities, Brown and black communities in the area that I represent. Additionally, some specialized programs, particularly in STEM and health professions are also jeopardized and likely to scale back.

Look, Colleges may also need to reduce staffing, critical staffing for positions funded by federal grants resulting in increased student to faculty ratios as well as strained resources. Federal funds enable colleges to adopt new technologies, innovation is jeopardized, modernized classrooms and implementing innovative programs. Cuts to these really hinder our efforts, negatively affecting the overall quality of education.

Some established programs would be difficult to replace with state funds because we know that the State Dollars are indeed already sort of earmarked. We have the student Senate funding formula, strong workforce programs that are primarily formula driven and already committed to core operations and to state priorities.

So they don't provide the same flexibility as federal minority serving institutions or Hispanic serving institutions which really Fund data systems, mentoring models, transfer pipelines, research assessment and and STEM programs for LACCD. In 2425 we were awarded $52 million in federal funding. Approximately of this 29 million is allocated to MSI, HSI and PVI related programs.

All of our nine colleges qualify for minority serving or Hispanic serving institutions. We have been informed that By June of 2026 LACCD will lose approximately $6 million in federal grant program dollars. And these funding cuts will result in reduced services for approximately 2000 students. 2000 students.

So current MSI HSI closures will also affect approximately 12 to 15 of our programs at LACCD impacting around 25 full time faculty and approximately 85 part time staff and faculty employees involved.

The loss of federal funding is going to undermine the mission of our community colleges which is to provide equitable access and high quality education and training for all of our students. As I conclude, I do want to get to some of the areas where I think we want to prioritize equal access.

First, I want to say that as A district. We have strengthened support for basic needs. That's been a priority for us. And we know that our students are hungry. We know that our students are housed. So basic needs are top priority. Transportation, mental health services.

These have been secured through state and federal advocacy and supplemented by philanthropic contributions. Secondly, I want to say that we have provided a robust academic and transfer support program including tutoring and clear transfer pathways, especially for first generation working and multilingual students.

Third, we have fostered safe and inclusive campus environments that uphold civil rights, allowing our students to learn free from discrimination. Our nine colleges have Dream Resource Centers, which was a point of pride for us, were established a while back. These pride centers reflect our commitment.

In July of 2020, we also adopted a framework for racial equity and social justice to promote anti racist practices within our organization. We are unabashed and proud of the students that we serve, whether they be undocumented, black students, LGBTQ foster youth, veterans. That is what makes our district rich and diverse and powerful.

The fact that we take 100% of all of our students that come to our institution. So I would say that we need to protect access for our non traditional underserved students through flexible scheduling and we continue to do that. We are also advocating for stable, diversified funding to maintain essential programs. We're expanding workforce and continuing education.

We know that a lot of our students entryway is through non credit learning, ESL first, going into noncredit credit programs and ultimately graduating. And finally, we emphasize the importance of investing in our digital equity which includes broadband access devices and digital literacy. This ensures that all of our students can fully participate in today's learning environment.

So in conclusion, we look forward to continuing to work with this body, Mr. Chairman, and this Committee to prioritize student basic needs. That's going to be important for us going forward. Academic support has been stated. Safety, flexibility and stable funding.

With your support, the district and our community colleges can continue to provide equitable access to higher education for every community college student in the State of California. Thank you for this opportunity to share my remarks at this hearing. I'm available to answer any questions at the end of the discussion. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Chancellor Roman, for that robust presentation. And thank you for your leadership and efforts at the LA Community College District, for everything you're doing. Next up, we'd like to welcome Kristen Soares, President of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. Welcome.

Thank you, Chair Fong, Dr. Patel and Dr. Jackson, for the opportunity to speak today about the impact of federal policy changes on access and Equity in California Higher Education I'm Kristen Soares, President of the Association of Independent California colleges and universities. AICCU's 87 private, nonprofit, WASC accredited colleges and universities located across California serve more than 300,000 students.

Over one third are Pell Grant recipients and nearly half are students of color. These students, many of them first generation, low income and from every region of the state, choose independent colleges for their degree programs, small classes, supportive environments and strong graduation outcomes.

I would also add that 30 AICCU Member campuses are designated as Hispanic serving institutions or HSIs and 27 are emerging HSI's. Federal recent federal actions have created real and troubling effect on college access.

The lingering impacts of the FAFSA rollout delays and changing and inconsistent financial aid information have left many families, especially low income and first generation, unable to make enrollment decisions. In addition, I would note the rhetoric that questions the value of higher education, particularly in the liberal arts and social sciences, and has fueled public skepticism.

This disproportionately discourages students who most need reassurance that higher education remains a worthwhile investment and an attainable goal. Additionally, as the first panel noted and my colleagues here have noted, the administration's policy and regulatory posture has created significant uncertainty for campuses and students. This includes international students.

As we've heard, heightened visa scrutiny and processing delays have led to declines across the board in application. This disrupts campus diversity and tuition revenue. Workforce Preparation New caps, as you heard on federal loan amounts and narrow definitions of professional degrees will severely limit access to high demand fields that require advanced education.

These provisions, included in HR1, disproportionately impact low income and first generation students, many of whom rely on federal graduate loans due to limited credit history research and academic freedom.

Federal Grant Cuts and Expanded Audits Audits not only have disrupted critical research in fields like climate studies and public health, but have reduced opportunities for students to engage in that work. The pipeline and new federal definitions of value are acceptable programs by linking federal loans to the wage earning potential of degrees.

While linking loan eligibility to graduates wage earning potential may seem fiscally prudent. It risks devaluing fields such as teaching, social work and the arts, disciplines vital to the public good yet lower in starting salaries. It also discourages first generation and low income students from pursuing mission driven careers.

Finally, as we have heard, federal aid programs such as Work Study, SEOG, TRIO and teacher preparation research grants have long supported equity and opportunity proposed cuts to these programs in the President's and the House budgets but further threaten access and completion for the very students higher education was designed to serve.

The loss of HSI grants has been especially harmful. Many AICCU campuses utilize these funds for services that benefit all students. Mentoring, tutoring and transfer outreach for first gen students. Without them, retention supports are being reduced at a time when they are most needed.

We are still recovering from the pandemic and the administration's targeting of so called WOKE spending has created uncertainty around diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Yet our institutions remain committed to ensuring every student feels safe, respected and supported campuses are adapting. We are adapting our programs to foster belonging, civil dialogue and equitable learning experiences.

Ensuring inclusive environments is not political. It is fundamental to student achievement and to developing the diverse talent our state's economy depends on in this environment.

And let me echo all the thanks and appreciation for your support and your leadership that California's leadership is more critical than ever and the state can continue but protect and strengthen the Cal Grant program, ensuring equitable access for all students. This includes funding the Transfer Entitlement Award to cover students who transfer to an independent college or University.

It is a current roadblock and with the roadblocks we're getting at the federal level, we have to be intentional about removing roadblocks at the state level. And you can achieve this in AB402. Consider a state backed loan program for key workforce fields and for underserved students and families, those without credit history.

Protect support for undocumented students who cannot access federal aid or those from mixed status families who are not comfortable sharing information with the Federal Government. Invest in transfer and dual admission pathways that makes college transition smoother and more affordable. And include support for independent colleges to participate so students can best access a program where they can succeed.

And I think what you've heard today is continue to model cross segment collaboration because students move across all systems and finally champion the value of higher education to restore confidence to students and families. Let me end that. Despite the federal headwinds and that keeps coming, California's independent college and universities remain deeply committed to equity, access and inclusion.

And together with our public partners, we are innovating, we are adapting to ensure every student, especially those historically underrepresented, can thrive. So thank you for your continued partnership in protecting higher education as both a public good and a personal hope for thousands of California students. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Kristen Soares, the President of AICCU. Thank you for your powerful testimony. Next up, we'd like to welcome Dr. Elizabeth Boyd, Chair of the CSU Academic Senate. Welcome Dr. Boyd.

Yes, good afternoon and thank you. Chair Fong, Member Patel and Member Jackson it's good to see you and thank you to the staff of the Committee who are here. I am Elizabeth Boyd. I am an entomologist. My pronouns are she, her, they or them.

And I'm a faculty Member who served California for over 17 years from my home campus of Chico State and before that as a researcher in the University of California system.

I currently serve as the Chair of the Academic Senate of the California State University, otherwise known as the ascsu, which is the system level non bargaining co governing body representing nearly 30,000 faculty that serve nearly half a million students in our 22 campus system.

Let me begin first by thanking you for creating space and an opportunity to speak with you today on this critically important topic. The testimony I'll share today was crafted from feedback that I received throughout the CSU system.

Although I'm unable to share all the stories at this time, we in the time that we have today, I will touch on several key issues that impact equity and access and we'll try to explain some of the human element to what we're seeing in the CSU. The first of those is the impact to the minority serving institution.

Funding and Stability Recent Shifts and as you've heard this echoed in the prior panels and here today in this panel, recent shifts in inconsistent communications from the U.S. Department of Ed regarding the MSI and Title V funding created significant uncertainty and complete losses of key student centered programs supported by these funding sources.

At its September plenary, the ASCSU faculty saw that this this coming and they passed a resolution calling for the protection of these programs encouraging the State of California to join as an intervener in the Tennessee and Students for Fair Admissions versus the Department of Ed and for the CSU to file an amicus brief also encouraged the California Congressional delegation to work to protect the current programs that Fund HSIA institutions.

Now I know that some of that has changed, but I wanted you to know that we were trying to offer some ideas about how we might move forward there programs such as Trio Finish in five. Some of them remain active, some of them have closed.

Those that remain active are doing so on repurposing of funding or existing carry forward funds. But the abrupt notice of termination and subsequent reversals disrupted planning, staffing and long term sustainability. This instability makes it difficult to scale high impact equity focused initiatives designed to support student success, completion, graduate preparation and workforce pathways.

I want to share with you a case from Dominguez Hills. This is from the Physics Department. The loss of Department of Ed MSI funding stripped 2.7 million from my student centered program with only one week's notice and no replacement funds.

To reduce the harm, I cut all student researcher hours across the board rather than terminate a smaller group. Yet every student's paycheck shrank and several have taken extra shifts at work or stepped back from research.

We now have no funding for our summer research program which has successfully run for the past four years, serving 25 to 30 Dominguez Hills graduates, undergraduates and 30 local high school students each summer across physics, biophysics, AI, VR, AR and robotics. This is a devastating blow to our college pipeline. Conference travel puts students on national stages.

Reagent and instrument time are being rationed. The hard won placements with federal and industry partners are at risk, and it feels nothing short of inhumane, not only because of the magnitude of the cut, but because the last minute timing left no ethical way to honor commitments to students whose opportunities depend on this support.

The second that I'd like to highlight is the impacts on international scholarship and learning. Thanks to Member Patel for raising the visa issue in the prior panel and in its September Plenary, the ASCSU also passed a resolution affirming its support of the important role international students play in the CSU.

Specifically, the changes to the F and J Visas and the new H1B application fees significantly impact the ability to recruit the best and brightest from across the globe and that benefit our students in their learning environments as well as dramatically impacting our international programs as a host or recipient partner for collaboration.

To underscore this impact, while sitting here I learned of a campus wide notice that the Department of Homeland Security officials are currently on our including ICE are on one of our campuses auditing the Student and Exchange Visitor Program.

It is becoming difficult to ensure a culture of safe, supportive and an inclusive environment that are the hallmarks to the CSU. Under these circumstances, impacts on students from immigrant and mixed status families, heightened national discourse and shifting in enforcement priorities related to immigration have increased anxiety among students, particularly undocumented students and those from mixed house families.

Dream Success Centers have seen a rise in students seeking advising, legal referrals and emergency support, signaling a climate of uncertainty and fear. The environment affects students sense of safety and belonging, which can influence academic performance, retention and full engagement in campus life.

As a result, many CSU faculty are teaching in hybrid formats to ensure that students can retain the opportunity to learn. Another case is with the College Assistant Migrant Program and the High School Efficient Equivalency Programs, specifically at CSU Bakersfield.

We've seen that they've supported decades of service operating for more than 25 and 15 years respectively, and due to the federal funding pause, these programs that are key in allowing basically students, first generation students to transfer successfully to college or assisting participants to earn high school equivalency diplomas are now no longer active.

Second to the last, impacts on the campus climate and community well being. There's been rapid changes in federal policy as you've seen, whether it's tied to funding, immigration or regulatory oversight creates these operational challenges and contributes to a sense of unpredictability for faculty and staff.

And these shifts require faculty to redirect their time and resources towards short term contingency planning rather than long term student success strategies. And our inconsistency at the federal level complicates efforts to provide stable, equitable and accessible education pathways for all our students.

And a sentiment shared to me from a Fresno State faculty Member is that quote, "They have experienced a seismic shift in how our faculty approach issues once lauded as central to to our success. Initiatives, programs, events and research mentioning diversity, equity, inclusion and ethnic studies have been eliminated, consolidated, rejected or put on notice.

What were once guiding principles and pillars of our professional and academic work are now treated as liabilities reflected in the erosion of migrant student support, directives to include all perspectives, faculty surveillance and fear of our students well being all consequences of the Federal Government's directives," end quote.

This has had a chilling impact with some faculty requesting changes to their teaching schedules in order to avoid teaching subjects that may place targets on them. In the broader context, uncertainty around federal programs affects workload for those supporting vulnerable student populations.

Faculty and staff that are responsible for grant implementation, advising and student support are often experienced increased pressure when funding cycles become unpredictable, and these conditions are creating a culture of fear and instability that can impact morale, retention and the ability to maintain continuity of support for our students.

In summary, as you've heard from me and other panelists today, the Current Federal Administration has had an incredibly disruptive influence in higher education in California. Although we are incredibly thankful to this state and the stance it has taken to help us from the sorts of programs that we can offer so that students have the freedom to learn.

Faculty and the CSU and across California remain steadfast in maintaining our institutions as safe places to learn and enabling students from all backgrounds, and I emphasize all backgrounds, to grow into civically engaged and productive citizens. But we cannot do it without your continued help. We thank you so much for this panel.

We need your affirmative support for the academic freedom that undergrads students freedom to learn. More than ever, we're thankful for the funding we received in the last state budget.

We now see that that priority to fund higher education is more critical than ever to preserve the rights of all students to learn and backfill the losses of inessential support that we've suffered. We're grateful for your continued support and partnership in building the workforce and citizenry of the future.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you and I invite any questions you have at the close of the panel.

Thank you so much, Dr. Boyd, for your powerful testimony and thank you for everything you're doing for the CSU Academic Senate. Next up, we'd like to welcome Dr. Cirian Villavicencio, Professor and co chair of the Department of Social Science at San Joaquin Delta College.

Welcome. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. Chair Fong and honorable Members of the Committee. Dr. Patel, Dr. Jackson. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and for the work you do on behalf of our students and our colleges. My name is Dr. Cirian Villavicencio.

I actually serve on as one of the two faculty representatives on the California Community College Board of Governors. But for this testimony, I will wear my role as a faculty Member Professor of Political science, co chair of my Department at San Joaquin Delta College that is located in Stockton, California, in the heart of the Central Valley.

I come before you not only as a faculty member at San Joaquin Delta College, but as someone who has spent nearly two decades teaching and mentoring students who too often feel unseen, unheard and unsupported by the systems meant to serve them. So I want to speak plainly about what we are seeing on the ground.

Our students are living with tremendous fear, especially our undocumented students and the loss of federal funding. As my colleagues have echoed in this panel and the previous panel, the funding for programs that have been proven to close equity gaps and change lives and has been truly devastating. Our undocumented and Dreamer students are scared. They are truly scared.

Many are choosing not to come to campus at all. They're enrolling in more online classes because they fear being caught up in an ICE raid on their way to and from school. This fear isolates them.

And when students stay online out of fear, they lose a sense of belonging that we know is essential for persistence and retention. They miss out on access to tutoring, counseling, office hours and Dreamer centers that were designed specifically to support them. And some of those resources exist because of this Legislature.

As supported in those investments, faculty like me are doing everything we can to create safe spaces. In my classes, I hand out red cards that explain students rights if approached by immigration officials. We even have conversations about what to do if ICE ever enters into the classroom. But no amount of preparation replaces peace of mind.

Our students are young people trying to build a future, and right now they're terrified that future can be taken away at any moment. At the same time, we are facing another major challenge of the loss of federal funding for Minority Serving institutions or MSI programs.

San Joaquin Delta College is proud to be a federally recognized MSI and that designation reflects who we are. Nearly 80% of our students are students of color. We hold dual designations as both a Hispanic service institution and and an Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institution or AANAPISI. These designations are not just a symbol of enrollment.

They affirm our responsibility to ensure every student has the opportunity to succeed, regardless of identity. These funds are intended to help us serve all of our students. In 2022, after years of advocacy and collaboration, we secured a highly competitive five year AANAPISI grant worth 1.89 million dollars.

This funding directly supported first generation low income students through tutoring, mentoring, academic counseling and culturally responsive programs that help students see themselves reflected in what they were learning. But on September 10, the US Department of Education announced it would end funding for MSI programs including HSIs and AANAPISIs claim, claiming that these initiatives were racially discriminatory.

That decision is both misguided and deeply harmful to the students we serve who rely on these services. Ending MSI funding dismantles programs that have been proven proven with measurable results. It pulls the rug out from under institutions that have worked for years to build equitable pathways for historically underserved students.

And for our college, it means losing the final two years of our AANAPISI Grant and cutting short work that is changing and transforming lives. I've seen the difference these programs make.

As a co founder of the Empowering Positive Initiatives for Change or EPIC and the Asian Pacific Islander American Empowerment or API learning communities, I've spent over 15 years teaching in and helping lead these efforts. These programs don't just offer classes, as Dr. Roman mentioned.

They provide again, wraparound support, academic guidance, mental health, counseling, career preparation, and perhaps most importantly, a sense of belonging. Students often tell me that EPIC and API gave them the confidence to stay in school, to transfer to a University and pursue their dreams.

One student once said to me, quote, "Professor, before EPIC, I didn't think people like me were meant to be in college", unquote. That's the power that these programs make. They help students reclaim their identities, see their worth and build resilience. And the data backs this up.

Students in these learning communities persist, transfer and graduate at higher rates than their peers. Equity programs like EPIC, API, Puente, Umoja, Amend and others are not just support programs, they are proven pipelines of success, and that's why these cuts are so devastating. We can't legislate our way to equitable outcomes.

We have to invest in the programs that make equity real, tangible and lasting. So what can the Legislature do now? What can all of us do today to support our students and colleges through this difficult moment? First, you can strengthen support for Dreamer resource liaisons and centers both on our campus, both on campus and virtually.

Many undocumented students are too afraid to come in person. So ensuring that the legal services, the counseling and resources they provide are accessible online is critical. Second, with federal MSI funding ending, you can encourage colleges to institutionalize these programs to ensure continuity of support for these programs that served our most vulnerable and marginalized students.

We cannot allow them to disappear simply because Washington has turned its back on equity. Third, you can expand and increase funding for state programs like Puente, Umoja and the INAPI Student Achievement Program. These initiatives already have strong track records of student success, and they can help fill the gap left by federal cuts.

And fourth, categorical programs must receive COLA adjustments. For years, many categorical programs have gone without cost of living increases even as expenses rise. It is more necessary than ever to ensure these programs have stable funding to continue the work they do. Ultimately, this is about more than budgets and policies.

It's about who we are as a state and as a system of higher education. We have a responsibility to protect our students, all of them. Colleges must remain places where every student feels safe, seen and supported, where they can learn, grow and dream without fear. Our communities are watching how we respond in this moment.

Students and families need to know that we have their backs, that we will stand up for them. Even when it's most uncomfortable, we must speak out. We must make it clear that equity is not a political slogan. It is a moral commitment.

It's what makes California's community colleges the most student centered and inclusive higher education system in the nation. And if we truly believe in opportunity for all, then we must act like it, by investing in the programs and people who make these promises real. Thank you for your time and your commitment to California students and families.

And I welcome any questions you have. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Dr. Villavicencio, for your powerful testimony and really appreciate the perspectives. And a couple questions and then I'll open up to my colleagues for additional questions and comments. And thank you so much, Dr. Gonzalez, for uplifting student financial aid programs and the Cal Grant equity framework reform.

This is something that is still a big priority of myself and a number of my colleagues. And so we're going to continue to, to push on that in these very challenging budget times. So I'm glad you uplifted that. I know we've had a number of conversations there.

I wanted to pose a question to Dr. Rahman in the LA Community College District. Dr. Roman, in your comments you also mentioned the Dream Resource Centers and a number of the efforts there.

If you can give us kind of a sense as to what's happening on the ground level, some of the Dream Resource Centers, maybe at some of the campuses, and then what are some of the opportunities there as well.

Thank you for that question, Chair Fong. And let me just say we're talking about the impact that's going on right now with immigration enforcement. I think Los Angeles is ground zero. What's happening right now, it's inhumane. Our families are being torn apart. Our students are being impacted directly, either themselves being detained or their families.

So I think the Dream Resource Centers have become more important now than ever because our message to our students, despite what's going on outside, is that they are not only welcome at our colleges, they're essential. They're essential to the contributions that they make in terms of the overall education experience of all students.

The Dream Resource Centers have been established at all of our nine campuses. They have been actually intact for now about 7-8 years, maybe a little longer before all of this happened. The idea there is to ensure that every student gets the support they need.

They have a place where they have staff there that have confidence and faith in their ability to support our students. They feel welcome, they speak their language many times. These are English language learners. In addition to that, they're providing key services.

We have tutoring, we have peer to peer mentorship, we have referrals to various services, including immigration services. We work with organizations like CHIRLA and Karaza in Los Angeles that are directly helping our students. They get referrals to vouchers, they get food vouchers, they housing opportunities. Really everything they need to be successful.

And quite frankly, if I could say, and I think it was also said by my colleague here, the funding for these Dream Resource Centers is absolutely vital. I want to thank the Legislature for the block grant that we received. As you know, we advocated for 100 million dollars. We thank the Legislature for giving us the 60 million.

But quite frankly, this is just not sufficient given the current climate that we're facing. So I want to advocate for opportunities where there may be to increase the funding. Because quite frankly, this is one of the best ways and most efficient ways that we can help our students.

Our students are staying with us and in parts because of the flexible schedules that we have online and because of the fact that we have been calling and messaging to them that when they come to our campuses, they will be safe, they will be supported, and we will do everything within our human power to ensure that they're successful.

So we want to continue to provide that support. My colleague also mentioned others and I'll just extend this. It's not just the Dream Resource Center Chair Fong, it's also our Umoja programs, our Amend programs, our LGBTQ centers. Everybody feels some sense of target.

There's fear across our colleges and quite frankly, these affinity groups and the support services are vital to ensure that our students remain engaged, they continue with their education and ultimately become successful.

And thank you so much, Chancellor Roman, for your comments there and really uplifting the $60 million. Thank. Grateful to my colleagues for the support and efforts around that block grant to provide additional flexibility for our California community colleges. We know that that was anticipation to some of the impacts from the Federal Government.

But as you mentioned, we continue need to do more to uplift our community college students. So I really appreciate those comments and thank you to everyone as well on the comments around the MSIs, NPAZs and really making sure that we're continuing to uplift those efforts as well here in California.

And that's something that we're going to continue to look at as well. Also, and to Dr. Boyd, thank you for bringing this forward. A number of you did as well. But also the concerns around academic freedoms and the restrictions on political rhetoric.

Wanted to get a sense as to how campuses are addressing what is seen as a chilling effect on free speech and the denial of civil rights to our marginalized communities. For you and for anybody else, thank you.

Yeah, ultimately it's variable depending what the faculty Members are capable of. I'll just be real that depending on where a faculty member is coming from and depending on whether or not they feel safe in their own classrooms anymore is, is, does impact what's happening. That being said, civil discourse in the in the classroom is essential.

And as it pertains to the subject matter, we, we have a- we I think we have a lot of faculty that are still doing the best they can to express the important and relevant topics that are essential to their learning environment in a specific discipline. And we have a number of free speech zones on our campuses.

This is part of our time, place and manner policies that we allow for that to occur. We also, we also do have settings where, where our, our students are fearful to interact in those environments. So the, the ability to really pull out in a safe space is becoming limited to some extent.

So regardless of California being a safer place to discuss much of these things, it is not necessarily the sentiment that our students feel when they're in the classroom and whether or not what they say there may be carried somewhere else. Same thing with faculty.

I would say that the faculty are fighting to retain academic freedom and to have that level of free speech, and particularly in the classroom as it relates to their discipline. At the same time, cautious. Cautious. Just- So what would be helpful would be a way for faculty to feel that they can be safe in these spaces.

We know that in some cases that campuses have now that in the past we've had a lot of transparency with the locations of where classes are being held. We often, as a matter of public record, those classes are available to people to see what we offer.

But having it accessible for someone to come find you while you're teaching that class has become a concern. So we have put that into the students that enroll in those classes, know where they need to go, but we're not necessarily offering some of that immediately, publicly in the same way.

And so that has had an impact as well on just how transparent we can be. And it highlights the insecurity and the fear that's occurring right now. I don't know if that fully answers what you're asking.

No, thank you for that context. It's very helpful information and providing the context as to what's happening on the ground level in the classroom environment, the environment that our students and faculty are in on a daily basis. So I really appreciate the insight there and for framing that. So thank you.

Thank you.

Would anybody else like to add?

I would just add that in California we have the Leonard Law. And so campuses are committed to academic freedom and to free expression and as you said, really ensuring that students know how to come together and have a safe environment. But campuses have to be a place where difficult conversations can take place.

And that's the space that we really have to. To create and are committed to making sure remain we have safe stones as well. But that. That is part of. That's essential to the learning experience.

Absolutely. Thank you, Dr. Roman.

I would echo that. You know, I think most importantly, students have to feel heard, they have to feel safe, they have to feel protected. And I think that's been part of the work that we've been doing over the last almost year now.

We want our students to know that when they're on campus, they have a sense of security. The people that are there, our faculty, our amazing faculty, our staff, our administrators are creating ethos that really are conducive to having that free speech that I think is absolutely fundamental to what higher education institutions are all about.

We are really strengthening support systems at the community college level to ensure that our students feel safe, they feel heard, they feel protected. Mentioned the Dream Resource Centers, reaffirming our commitment to open expression. I think that's fundamental in the protection of marginalized communities. If they don't have a voice now, when will they?

And I think for us, more importantly right now, is to ensure that the voiceless have a voice, and that is the marginalized communities that are being targeted.

So we're very purposeful and intentional about the work that we're doing and messaging to our students that when they come on campus, they have opportunities to voice their concerns, to ensure that they have the voice that perhaps outside they're not feeling they have right now.

And more importantly, that they have the support of an entire institution that's behind them, not only supporting them, but also advocating and fighting on their behalf. So it's a difficult balance, I understand, between the fear aspect that I think certainly is prevailing in some of our environments.

But at the same time, it's important that the advocacy ultimately prevails because, you know, this is something that we're going to be in for quite some time, and we have to make sure we continue.

To be not only there with our students, but sometimes in front of them, ensuring that we're fighting and guarding their basic human rights. So it's a balance, Chair Fong and, you know, Dr. Patel and Dr. Jackson.

But it's an important point to make that we will make sure that they have a voice at the local, at the state and at the federal level. And that's something that we've committed to at LACCD and I know a lot of other colleges have as well.

Absolutely. Thank you so much for that context, Dr. Roman, and to all our panelists for continue to uplift that sense of space and time and security on our campuses for academic freedoms and expressions. Now I'd like to open up to my colleagues for any comments or questions. Assemblymember Patel.

Thank you, panelists, for the robust discussion and being a little vulnerable with us here today. It's very important to create a safe space, even within our Legislature, to talk about the things that matter most to our constituents. It's really tragic what's happening to the MSI funding.

When we look at our outcomes, when we look at providing all of our supports that the TK-12 system is doing to make sure students are ready to go to college. They get into college, which is a dream for so many of our students, they secure the funding to get there.

They work with their families to find a schedule that works for everybody. And then it is our responsibility to make sure they have every resource they need to ensure success and that our investment in them turns into a degree where they can give back to society and community and strengthen our communities.

So the fact that these are going away is really troubling in their place. I have read in our brief that there are these several different kinds of grants that are being rolled out.

Have any of your systems looked at the 50 million dollars for artificial intelligence, the 60 million for civil discourse, 7 million for questioning our accreditation system, the 50 million for short term programs. Is any of this going to be-

Can we work with any of these programs to fit into our California values and continue some of the programs that we already have? Is there a way to do that?

I'll start briefly. I think, to your point, Dr. Patel, they have to align with our mission. Doing away with Civil Discourse is clearly against everything that we fight for. Perhaps artificial intelligence is a space where we're doing some research in terms of how that's going to lead into the higher education space.

But we're always saying in an educationally responsible way, what we're looking for are students to continue to build their critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, their ability to write, communicate. And so what we're doing at LACCD is we're building AI literacy programs that allow our students and our faculty to become literate in this technology.

It's not going away. It's getting better and better.

And so for us, it really is about how do we immerse it into the higher education space in a responsible way, in a way that it becomes a tool for both our faculty and our students to enhance the educational experience rather than substitute certain things that I think are fundamental for a student to learn in higher education.

We also know it's being used outside in medicine and law and business. So we want to make sure that when our students leave our institutions, they are prepared to use this type of technology. Right. So we're starting to get into that space.

That's probably the one grant that I think would make some sense, certainly not our top priority. You know, I would say, I mean, I would put those funds towards some more fundamental things like protecting our students. But I could tell you that's probably an area where we'll look at potentially, you know, applying for some funds.

Most of what we've seen out there doesn't align well with the institutional values, quite frankly. That's, you know, we might pass on some of these grants, but I think what's most fundamental for us is what you the work that you are doing. One final example I'll give you just the transition is AB 323.

Thank you to Assemblymember Fong and all of you for supporting that Bill. This is a Bill that will allow us to actually pay our students internships, to place them in business and industry locations with strong workforce dollars. We know that many of our students can't take an unpaid internship because they're having to work.

So the idea of having a paid internship where they can actually go into a location where they are aspiring to be a professional in and they get paid through our institution makes a lot of sense.

So those are the kinds of grants that we're looking for to augment that Bill and support because we know that internships lead to jobs. So again, only aligned, value aligned and mission aligned grants are the ones we seek to go for.

Clearly the ones you outline, I would say maybe just one might be remotely of interest to us because of the advanced technology, but the others are certainly not. We're not going to go after every grant for the sake of it, much less if it doesn't align with the core mission of our institution.

Right.

Dr. Patel, the reality is the majority of what you mentioned is actually counter to what California has been investing in and trying to grow and create here. The one exception would be Workforce Pell.

California has been a strong leader in making a connection to high wage jobs, high road jobs, and for many years advocated for the community colleges to gain access to Workforce Pell.

And not just that, but to create it in a manner where we are giving credit where credit is due, where we are not just acknowledging programs that are longer in term, but Shorter. During this global pandemic, many of the community colleges reduce the number of hours and really focus in on the coursework that mattered for adult learners.

So those 8 to 15 week programs were already here in existence in California. And now that workforce Pell acknowledges it.

Now the reality, the reality is the way that it was adopted, everyone and anyone can now qualify, which means the negotiated rulemaking when it begins, hopefully if there's anyone left at the US Department of Education, and it's meant to conclude in January that we should all be number one, engaging in two, then here in California We've got to prepare AICCU, UC, CSU, Community Colleges to benefit the most.

Why? Because we've been doing the work. The truth is, the way that it was adopted, it's not set up to benefit California. But we are courageous leaders. We've been leading. I believe that we can do it.

And one of the things that I shared with all of you was Cal Grant C. It's already an existing financial aid program that you have in the state. It was meant to really tackle high wage jobs here in the state. But the list of programs that qualify is extremely outdated.

There's also an opportunity to prepare institutions to be competitive. Start here, incentivize them to then create those short term programs that can qualify for the existing rules of Workforce Pell. And that's the future, I think, of an opportunity that given our reality, we could take advantage of. Thank you.

If I may just build upon what Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Roman mentioned. I think I'll wear my Board of Governors hat for this question. I know embedded in our master plan with Vision 2030 is a focus on AI. And so we've developed a digital center to use AI ethically.

And so Dr. Patel, I haven't heard about that specific grant. I'm sure our staff can take a look more into it. But if there is alignment and where we can work with this Administration, I think we'll move forward with what that looks like. It is important. With the caveat with what Dr. Romont mentioned.

It has to be aligned with our mission and our values, not just as a system. I know institutionally we have a mission at Delta College where we're going to be focused on being student centered, anti racist and equity focused at the system wide level.

Equity is in the heart of what we do when it comes to student success, access and support. And so yes, as long as it aligns with our mission, we will find common ground. As Dr. Gonzalez mentioned, we have focused on economic and workforce issues, especially with Perkins.

I think there is something, there is an opportunity there where we can work together. There are 6.8, approximately 6.8 million Californians that don't have a post secondary certificate or degree. And so we are laser focused as a system to find ways and create pathways for them to receive that degree.

As was mentioned, there's credit for prior learning that could advance this. But we have to be very cognizant as a system that accepts the top 100% of California students. We will focus on our most vulnerable students and our most disproportionately impacted students. So we're going to continue to help.

And with the partnership with this Legislature, we hope you will continue to focus. As Dr. Roman mentioned, our LGBTQ plus students who are under attack, our veterans, our current and former foster youth, our justice impacted students. We are, I think, very innovative in what we're doing as a system.

And we look forward to partnering not just with you, but with our intersegmental partners to really uplift and elevate all Californians. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Oh yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, I just don't want to interrupt you.

No, go.

There's a few programs that we've heard about that I'm getting. Some of my staff in the back are helping me out with a couple of these.

Love teamwork.

So in the FIPSE, the funds for the improvement of post secondary education overall, there's a couple of them that it looks like. There's just a couple examples that the Civil Discourse program, for example, where the funding mandates the universities to work with nonprofits.

There's another where the Department of Ed maybe only allows three weeks for the development of a grant proposal for the funds in the basic needs for post secondary students program.

So some of those pieces of that make some of these programs potentially really suspicious or we're not unsure how that really meets the mission and values that we hold. And I think we've heard from our community college partners how important those are.

And, and so in General, I would say that we also are open and would like to learn about how these work. At the same time, are very cautious about where these land us in terms of what we stand for as institutions of higher ed.

Yeah, I think that is the concern that we are missing some of the values centered missions in the new programs that are being created while our MSI programs are being defunded.

And so that just widens the chasm even more to which states are going to receive higher education funding and how that balance is going to shift for us here in California.

We have to be extra vigilant to make sure that we're meeting the needs of all of our students because that is ultimately our workforce and therefore our economy, and addresses all the affordable affordability issues we are dealing with here in California. Switching topics a little bit, we have the I'm reading from my notes, Executive Order 14174.

Bear with me. This is the Executive order that ends illegal discrimination, restoring merit based opportunity orders all agencies to enforce long standing civil rights laws and combat illegal private sector DEI, blah, blah, blah. What I would love to know is Is there a difference between how our private, our AICCU institutions in our public universities, higher education-

Is there a difference in how you are going to have to navigate this Executive order, or is it the same for our privates versus our public education systems? Since there is some federal funding coming to you, I would imagine it might be the same.

Generally, it's the same the way it applies to institutions. This Executive order in particular. I would need to go back. There's been a lot of them, but I mean, Generally the applications, Dr. Patel, have been the same in how we navigate them.

So what I would love to see is what I was trying to champion last year is equity on how much money a student can have with their Cal Grant and where they take it.

Because on the other end of it, our nonprofit higher institutions that are not public are dealing with the same challenges that our public institutions are dealing with. And our students are the recipients of the Cal Grant. It's not the institution that's recipient of the Cal Grant. So it should be able to follow that student wherever they go.

And I would love to see us make progress in that regard so that our students can access education anywhere they choose to take that, whether it's one of our AICCUs or whether it's one of our CSUs or UCs or wherever they end up.

And then my last question is, I'm also hearing that some unredacted faculty information is being handed over in some of the litigation that's going on surrounding free speech and academic freedom.

Can any of you speak a little bit to what progress we're making to support our faculty and our staff whose names are not being redacted in some of this material that's being handed over?

Yeah. Dr. Patel, you know, I've not been privy to some of that. I mean, at least LACCD has not yet been involved in needing to render those types of documents.

Certainly what I would say is, if that were to be the case, we would fight that fiercely and legally, to the extent possible, because I think that feeds to the fear of our faculty being able to do their job and then two months later being subpoenaed with documents. Right.

Again, it's something that I think our feneral counsel, we would seek to the state as well, if possible, to take this battle on. Because quite frankly, I think I'll say here there's abuse of power happening right now, there's censorship, there's loss of First Amendment rights like I've never seen in the time I've been in this country.

So we haven't been certainly a party to that. But I would say if that were to be the case, we would put our strong legal team behind that to protect, to the extent possible, those documents and certainly redact documents that we need to provide, but not put faculty names out there.

Thank you.

To the specific question that you've asked about unredacted faculty names in other materials, I am unaware of what that is at this time, and I think that might be a great question that I could pass along to our administrative partners and try to get back with you on the answer to that.

What I am aware of is that in response to an EEOC investigation that at least one of our campuses have released all the email. Email addresses and personal contact for faculty and staff of that institution. And so I am.

I see what it was.

I am aware of that. To. To that effect. I understand that there's also our specific faculty union, whom I believe we have some representatives maybe here that might be able to send me a message. But the faculty union is working on that particular issue with respect to the notice to faculty ahead of time.

But I think that the main thing is the CSU is. What I understand that we've been told is the CSU is trying to comply with federal federal law and trying to abide by what they believe they have to do under the federal circumstances.

With respect to the other pieces, though, I'll check into those and see if we have any information we can share.

Thank you. I think we can't protect academic freedom if we can't protect our staff.

That's precisely what I was trying to get at with my answer to the prior question with Chair Fong is that there are some faculty that are going to be, you know, Some faculty that are going to feel less impacted by the potential negative consequences of being able to uphold all that academic freedom is supposed to do in terms of the learning environment for our students.

And there are some faculty, staff and even students that feel that they can't fully participate in those things that we call freedoms at this time.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Assembly Patel, Assembly Member Jackson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question is in regards to, I mean, obviously there's been a lot of discussions in regards to discourse and our democracy and those type of things. I know I had a bill last year to talk about how we can restore our institution's ability on how to relearn, how to have civil discourse.

In many ways, I think it's a skill that we assumed would always be there, but not so much. And next year I'm going to be thinking about more of a Bill. My bachelor's is actually in political science from Cal State San Bernardino.

And one thing I realized even as I was shepherding a democracy Bill this year through the Legislature is not many people really understand what our democracy is actually made of.

When we say democracy, people automatically go to three branches of government, but there's governmental and non governmental institutions, as well as a sense of rights and principles that are made to be able to uphold, strengthen and protect democracy.

How would your openness be about really making sure that we are really embedding this more in our institutions in a better way?

Even within some of our curriculum, when we start talking about how are we really teaching about not just government but our democracy and understanding that those are two different things in many cases, what are your thoughts about starting to maybe take another look at how we are framing our curriculum when it comes to those issues and even our campus policies and things like that.

In terms of how are we reteaching in many cases our professors on how to engage in healthy discourse in a protective and a safe environment, but in a rigorous, rigorous conversations.

But then also how are we making sure that when discourse is going into crossing a line of now rhetoric that is putting people in danger and those type of things processes on campus in place not just to stop it, but how to actually bring those people in to actually learn how to continue that conversation in a better hand, healthier and more democratic way?

Thoughts I certainly can start and from one poli Sci major to another, UC Riverside. I don't know. I'm sort of trying to remember Dr. Jackson if you're islander, but I'll start with what's been fundamental to Community Colleges AB 1725.

This was the introduction of participatory governance, which gave community colleges and our stakeholders a voice to actually have discourse and opportunities to share ideas and actually come to decisions about the college.

Within the participatory governance, we have curriculum committees that are part of the academic Senate, where these types of discourses happen about curriculum, about the needs that are trending with regards to new courses.

But I think the broader, really, the broader context, which is what you're talking about is how are colleges sort of working together as stakeholders to ensure that people's opinions are valued and that they're part of the process that ultimately makes that decision?

We have invested a lot of time at the community colleges at laccd, certainly, in ensuring that every particular stakeholder has a voice, including our students. So all of our committees have a student voice. Certainly we have a student trustee at the governance level. Trustee Fung remembers that from his LACCD days.

But also at the college level, you know, we want to hear from our faculty, we want to hear from our Senate, we want to hear from our classified professionals, we want to hear from our administrators, believe it or not. And so most of the time. So that is the process that we have in place.

Please don't start any fights here in this hearing room. We're all amongst friends here, so. But anyway, so that's the fundamental process.

But I would say right now we are having more and more town halls that are really opening opportunities for us to ensure that we get the voice of all the folks, that all of the varied interests are represented.

You can imagine the types of town halls we're having right now around what's happening to our communities, around even AI, around trending topics. I do think community colleges do this very well.

I think it's been fundamental since the inception of participatory governance, but I think it's become more important than ever that we continue to ensure that all of our voices are heard and that every single individual has an opportunity to voice their concerns and that they're listened to.

So I'll give you that as a starting point to your question. I know others may want to weigh in as well, but that's been fundamental to community colleges.

So first, I want to acknowledge, too, we have similar systems of shared responsibility in our curriculum, where a lot of dialogue happens, as you're aware, and as a graduate from the CSU system. And there's our General education that we host, but we also have the graduation requirements in the political sciences and history.

Those are areas where I believe that some of these Discussions are happening in the CSU. In addition to that, we have a number of ways in which those, those topics that you mentioned are being fed right into the General education courses that all students are taking. And we share that responsibility with our community college partners.

A bunch of our transfer students come to us and they're being exposed to some of those there as well. With respect to the most recent sort of work that's happening, I wanted to highlight just something that I've been copied on that also connects to, I think what not specifically maybe specific classrooms, but maybe generally across the University.

Our deputy Vice Chancellor for strategic enrollment management and student success, Dr. Delse Perez, recently issued notices to each of our campuses allocating a small and moderate portion of money to advance service learning and community engagement. And I'll read to you.

Just a highlight from that piece is that as we reimagine learning environment for the decade ahead and experiential education, integrating classroom knowledge with real world challenges has become a cornerstone of how we prepare our students for meaningful careers, civic responsibility and lifelong learning, service learning in particular.

And so I see there being overlap with some of the pieces that you brought up in this work as well.

And so I think that the CSU is seeing what's happening and understanding that part of where we're at is the education of our populace and how do we navigate that space and build in the understandings of what a democracy means into the spaces that as our new student leaders and our and those that are civically minded and civically engaged come forward and interact with in our society.

Thank you.

You had to pose the political science question. Without having to delve into not sounding like my Professor hat here and talking about politics. But from my perspective, we are in a moment where there is a crisis of legitimacy. When I say crisis of legitimacy, I'm talking about the attack in our institutions, government including one.

There is a crisis of trust. How do we rebuild that trust is essential to a democracy. And my colleagues have mentioned some ideas here that we can embed within our institutions, including service learning. I know for my students we promote civic engagement, civic participation. How can you uplift our communities through politics?

There's opportunities for that, but we live in a very complex world, Dr. Jackson. As you know, we now have AI and new technologies that make participation more challenging. I will tell you, every semester I now teach becomes ever more challenging in the classroom. And so I have to delve more into media literacy.

I need to talk a little bit. About. How AI obviously is affecting what is fact from what is Fiction from what is being exaggerated. I can tell you that this is a challenge that I know that my class can't resolve on its own.

It really takes us as a community to build that trust, not just with our institutions, but let's just be clear, trust with our fellow neighbors and one another. And so there's something to be said about that.

I'm not gonna solve this crisis of legitimacy, this crisis of trust with my answer, but it is something definitely that we need to further delve into. And there's something to be said also why there is a civil society. Right.

How do we engage again in civil dialogue without again healing this political divide that we know exists within our society? I don't have the right answers, but I know I'm trying to mend the political divide in the students that I teach every day in my class.

Yeah. It seems to me that we also though, have, as we get further and further, and we're approaching 250 years in terms of the founding of our country, that we're also missing the democratic muscle that normal citizens are lacking in terms of how do you know when your democracy is under attack? See what I'm saying?

I'm not just talking about attend the City Council meeting.

I'm not just talking about, you know, and this is what happens when the speaker puts a bunch of doctors on a Committee. Imagine how long it would be if the First Committee would be. The whole Committee would be here, if Dr. Lashay would be here. Exactly. No shade, but.

Right.

And it's not just about community service and things like that. But how do you know when your democracy is under attack and what parts, and recognizing what parts might be under attack and why that institution, whether governmental or non governmental, what is the function of that institution? You see what I'm saying?

So I'm really talking about more deeper dive into these things that if we, I mean, whether it's community college, CSU, our private or UC system, the thousands of people who have to go through the General education courses, that we shouldn't just be pumping out workers, we should be pumping out protectors of our democracy also. Right?

And I mean, I can go on and on like also. But I'm just saying that that is our current curriculum and coursework sufficient to do so.

It is an excellent question. And when I talked about intersectmental collaboration earlier, I mean, this is where the segments come together, because what you're asking is really fundamental to what higher education is about, which is teaching and learning and having that inquiry to ask those questions and is this under threat or not. But that is the fundamental.

That is what a liberal arts education, and you said it earlier, that is what we're teaching our students and what we need to. And I think we know in higher education right now this is a moment all of us are feeling it and navigating it as we're going through these times.

But I think hearing this question from you, as you think about it too, as a policymaker, it's for us to go back to work with our campus leaders about what does this look like. Fundamentally shared governance. Right. Is what drives the. Drives the academic offerings of an institution.

So how do we work with our faculty, how do we engage and the administrators. But this is what higher education is designed to do. And higher education will endure. We will get through this time.