In response to University of California (UC) President Michael Drake’s new campus climate policies announced on Aug. 19, UAW 4811 — a union representing over 48,000 UC academic workers — issued a Demand to Bargain with UC administrators on Aug. 27.
“As a matter within the scope of negotiations, the University has proposed a new policy(s) that has a significant and consequential impact on the terms and conditions of employment for members of UAW bargaining units,” UAW 4811 President Rafael Jaime said in a press release. “As a result, the UAW is requesting to meet and confer over this policy(s), including the impact of the decisions.”
The campus climate efforts outlined “restrictions on free movement,” including the prohibition of student encampments and the usage of masks to conceal one’s identity “with the intent of intimidating any person or group” and requiring students to reveal their identities when asked to do so by University officials. The UC Campus Climate Initiative is currently in development for “consistent implementation of policies and consistent responses to policy violations” in creating campus climate action plans at all UC campuses.
Drake described the goal of the policies to “ensure a safe, inclusive campus climate that fosters a free exchange of ideas.”
“Clear communication and consistent application of policies and laws are key to achieving the delicate but essential balance between free speech rights and the need to protect the safety of our community and maintain critical University operations,” Drake said in the letter.
Drake emailed all UC chancellors on Aug. 19, requesting that each campus compile the new policies on a single document or webpage prior to the fall term. However, he described the policies as “illustrative” and directed chancellors to “use different language to achieve the same effect” if necessary.
UCI Associate Professor of English and Chair of the Irvine Faculty Association Annie McClanahan believes the new policies raise concerns for student safety and freedom of expression.
“The incredibly vague language around prohibitions on masking could be used to target protestors who are using masks to protect them from illness, a clear violation of disability protections,” McClanahan told New University. “The equally vague language prohibiting ‘restrictions on free movement’ would outlaw the very tactics of protected civil disobedience the UC [and Drake himself] claim are central to the history of protest on campus.”
Strategic Communication spokesperson for the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) Stett Holbrook stated that there is no ban on masking in an email to New University.
“President Drake’s directive is consistent with University policy and state law and refers only to prohibiting wearing a mask with the intent of intimidating any person or group, or for the purpose of evading or escaping discovery, recognition, or identification in the commission of violations of law or policy,” Holbrook told New University. “Campus officials will distinguish between prohibited masks and those used for COVID-19 protection or other permissible reasons by evaluating the intent behind their use.”
Assistant Vice Chancellor of Communications and Media Relations Mike Uhlenkamp said that a “great majority of policies referenced recently by the Office of the President are already in place at UC Irvine.”
“Our current efforts are in collecting those policies into one place that is readily available and to ensure that those policies are adequately communicated to our university community,” Uhlenkamp told New University. “It is our goal to have a learning environment where all feel welcome, and while we are working to make sure that policies are enforced as consistently as possible.”
The California state legislature is currently withholding $25 million in funding until the UCOP submits a written report regarding student campus climate notifications — which are to include the campus’ pre-existing “Time, Place and Manner Policy” regarding free speech activities and communication of violation due process — by Oct. 1 under Senate Bill 108. This comes after some students at various UC campuses, including UC Riverside and UC Berkeley, voluntarily dispersed following administrator-student negotiations while police intervened at encampments at UCI, UCSD and UCLA in the spring.
“I remain steadfast in my commitment to protecting the rights of all members of our community to express whatever viewpoints they believe are essential for others to hear and engage,” UCI Chancellor Howard Gillman wrote in an email on May 15 following the encampment dispersal.
In a letter to Drake on Aug. 14, the UC Academic Senate outlined faculty’s concerns for campus safety, lack of transparency and interim suspensions discussed by the University Committee on Affirmative Action, Diversity and Equity (UCAADE).
“[During the 2024 protests] there was insufficient transparency and documentation around decision-making processes, particularly regarding the use of law enforcement and consultation with faculty,” the letter stated. “As UCAADE notes, some campuses have established structures that facilitated less contentious outcomes during the spring protests.”
The Academic Senate took “votes of no confidence and/or censure of chancellors” for the campuses with police intervention: UCI, UCLA and UCSD. The motion ultimately did not pass.
Suspended students and pro-Palestine supporters held a press conference to respond to the new policies and announced a lawsuit against UC regarding their suspended statuses on Aug. 20 at the Santa Ana Civic Center Plaza in front of the Alex Odeh statue.
“The student movement is united, and with people power and together we understand that the students united, the people united, the community united will never be defeated,” an unidentified UCI Divest spokesperson said in response to Drake’s announcement.
Five suspended UCI students filed the lawsuit with the Alameda County Superior Court against the UC Regents and UCI Chancellor Howard Gillman on July 30, requesting the university abide due process requirements.
According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, the students received indefinite interim suspensions until the “final outcome of a Resolution Process or subsequent disciplinary or appeal process” on May 8, which led to the students losing access to campus services and housing, missing days at work and being unable to attend classes or graduation. The students did not receive “any prior notice or an opportunity to be heard” before the suspensions, which remained in place when the lawsuit was filed.
In the petition, the plaintiffs’ attorneys requested the students to receive “equitable relief” and have their interim suspensions and academic holds lifted. Additionally, the attorneys requested the university to issue interim suspensions based on “individualized inquiry rather than en masse” and with “prior notice and opportunity to be heard” if in response to protest activity.
UC Regent Richard Leib recently told Forward that he anticipates that the student pro-Palestine movement will be just as active in the fall due to the approaching one-year anniversary of the Oct. 7 Israel-Palestine escalation, but is “looking at zero tolerance [on encampments].”
No UCI-specific communications have been made at this time.
Malaika Sultan is a News Intern for the summer 2024 quarter. She can be reached at malaiks1@uci.edu.
Kaelyn Kwon is an Assistant News Editor. She can be reached at kaelynmk@uci.edu.
Edited by Karen Wang.
