11 ms·

Judge freezes UC Berkeley's student enrollment at 2020-21 levels

91 points by elsewhen 5y ago

jollybean 5y ago
It's really interesting that this is a judicial rather than a civic ruling, on what material basis can judges really make such a vague ruling? What are the 'measures' that the UC would have to meet if there are no specific codes or city bylaws they are not breaking ... how is this a matter for the judiciary? Can someone comment? Dragon?
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  The judge didn't come up with this ruling out of nowhere, someone had to file suit against UC Berkeley.
- Fomite 5y ago
  When you want to stop someone from doing something because you think it breaks the law, you file an injunction. That makes it a judicial thing. This is especially true for state agencies (like the UC system) - you basically have to sue them.
- nomel 5y ago
  This is a great question for us non-lawyers. Why is it being downvoted? I'm confused about the "how" rather than "what" or "why". I see what happened, and why the the judge made the decision, but how can a judge tell a business where they can be and how many they service, if there's nothing illegal going on? Public nuisance laws, or something similar?
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    > This is a great question for us non-lawyers. How is it a great question? In the US when two parties have a disagreement they can either discuss amongst themselves and resolve it, take it to a mediator to resolve it, or take it to the courts. In this instance, the courts became involved because UC Berkeley wasn't going to stop the expansion and the people and city felt that they had a case. Apparently the judge agreed with them. Like I said in my other comment, someone had to file a suit. The judge didn't intervene just because they were bored, someone filed suit. > how can a judge tell a business where they can be and how many they service, if there's nothing illegal going on? Read the article. Berkeley made initial expansion plans for around 1600 students by 2020, but exceeded 11k instead. This contradicted the initial agreement and plans with the city so the suit was filed. Also, UC Berkeley is not a business, it's a public state institution.
    - jkhdigital 5y ago
      I think the problem is that trial outcomes are often reported using language as if the judge personally endorsed the entire case of the victorious party, as opposed to simply deciding the case in their favor.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      It's a reasonable question because it's hard to fathom what could possibly be the legal grievance here. Your answer of 'disagreement / mediation / grievance / court' is frankly not very helpful, because it's simply not the case in the vast majority of disagreements. There has to be some legal grievance for the lawsuit. As it turns out, the issue is brought because apparently UCB, according to the Judge didn't do 'a good enough job' at assessing the social impacts of their growth. This is firstly, a very odd thing for a judge to do in my view, taking a stance in a very grey matter, moreover, the more salient issue is that the outcome of the impact assessment may not be relevant. If it turns out that the student increase will increase rents and home prices by 30%, well, so what then? For example "This contradicted the initial agreement" - what legally binding 'agreement' would a university have to have with a local municipality? Surely they'll want to work together and agree to invest here and there, but how does that turn into something binding? I'd like to know. Given all of this ambiguity, it's a pretty reasonable thing to ask for someone with material legal background for insight.
      - Jtsummers 5y ago
        It's a state court making a decision about a state law. They absolutely have jurisdiction. Judges make rulings like this all the time. Without these kinds of rulings, the final result would be determined by default. If Party A is doing something potentially harmful to Party B, and Party A is permitted to continue while everything plays out in court, then the result is a default ruling for Party A. Also, in the original question there was a nonsense phrase (civic ruling) which I took to mean civil ruling. If that's the correct interpretation, the courts in the US are involved in both civil (like this) and criminal matters. That's what they do. Regarding my 'disagreement /mediation / greivance / court' thing, that is how things get resolved, aside from violence or protest or just ignoring it, the principle methods of resolving disputes in the US are: discussion between the parties, mediation, the courts. That is a factual statement. Violence is not a legal manner of recourse. Ignoring it is obviously not what one group wants (so forces them towards discussion, mediation, or courts). Protest (probably happening) doesn't actually resolve most things on its own, unless it's able to shutdown business for one of the parties long enough to force them to the table or put them out of business. Protest mostly draws attention to an issue, which can force the hand of one side but is not universally successful.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > I see what happened, and why the the judge made the decision, but how can a judge tell a business where they can be and how many they service Essentially, A judge found that the UC Berkeley campus and the UC Board of Regents violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to consider relevant factors in their handling environmental impact statements regarding UC Berkeley expansion, and directed the Regents and campus to nullify their illegal actions and halt further expansion until such expansion was lawfully approved. > if there's nothing illegal going on? The “if there's nothing illegal going on” premise is directly contrary to the ruling. The campus and Regents actions regarding the required environmental impact reports related to the expansion were found to be illegal, that's the whole basis for the decision.
  - webmaven 5y ago
    > how can a judge tell a business where they can be and how many they service? UC Berkeley is a state agency, not a business.
    - nomel 5y ago
      I don't see how this matters. It's a separate entity run by policy decisions outside of the judges control. Judges interpret law, they don't direct state agencies on their whim. I see now that it was a legal problem with the environmental impact study. I misunderstood what was going on, and someone helped.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  The ruling is that Berkeley did break the law. Or, at least, they didn’t follow it. California has an environmental law called the California Environmental Quality Act[1] or CEQA. It sets forth a process that all state and local government entities (including state universities) must follow when undertaking new projects. My very superficial legal understanding of the CEQA is that it’s seriously complex. I’m on mobile so I’m having a hard time finding the document but to give you an idea of the complexity the state puts out an annual CEQA handbook with all the rules and guidance and recent cases and it’s something like 400 pages long. (Edit: Here’s a link to the PDF[2] of the 2021 Handbook.) At the heart of CEQA is a requirement that, prior to undertaking a new project, the entity has to complete an environmental assessment of how the proposed project will impact things like water use, pollution, noise, etc. Then they need to publish the report, get comment from the public, and, in certain instances, adjust the project plan to minimize the impact. CEQA also, somewhat controversially, allows for a private right of civil action. So when a state or local government entity in California doesn’t comply with CEQA then a person who is or may be negatively impacted by the failure to comply can file a civil suit and that’s what happened here. The reason the private right of action is controversial is because it’s sometimes (often?) used as pretext to get a court-order to prevent a project by people or groups who aren’t at all concerned for the environment but have some other motive. And, because the law is incredibly complex, it turns out it’s not a bad legal strategy for NIMBYs. (Edit: I just want to clarify that I don’t mean to imply the group who filed this suit are NIMBYs or environmental activists. I have zero idea as to their motives.) Anyway, this case wound up on this judge’s docket because a local group brought suit under CEQA alleging the University didn’t follow all of the requirements and the judge agreed. So he sent them back to do the process again. And in the meantime, he froze enrollment. (Again, I have a very superficial understanding of how it works so take everything I’ve said with a grain of salt. In practice it’s far more complex than what I’ve described.) [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Environmental_Quality_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Environmental_Qua... [2]https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf
systemBuilder 5y ago
If California could freeze all population at 2020-2021 levels, it would do it in a heartbeat! It's a racist white state (that played ZERO Motown in the 70's - Beach Boys only baby!) rigged to exploit immigrants as much as possible with migrant farm worker programs, migrant tech worker programs called H1B (75% of which work in CA) tax exploitation named prop13 (immigrant homebuyers pay ALL the property taxes whereas longtime white landowners pay Nothing!) and California invented the concept of a gold rush where the locals selling picks and shovels get rich while the immigrant prospectors get screwed - invented in 1848 but currently in progress with the internet boom of 1998-2021!
outside1234 5y ago
Not sure why a Judge gets to decide this but it makes sense. Why are we expanding Berkeley - in a super expensive area for students instead of expanding in Merced (or even Davis) - where is much less expensive.
- TedShiller 5y ago
  Exactly. Quality of education has gone down. Let's make it smaller again (not just freeze).
- kjksf 5y ago
  Because capitalism and private property and free will. Berkley doesn't get to tell you to live in a cheaper appartement. In return, you don't get to tell Berkley where they can open a new campus. I get that in this case the Judge decided to stop the expansion. I'm just responding to "Why are we expanding Berkeley" bit. There's no "we" here. There's only UC Berkley and they get to decide how to conduct business.
  - frostburg 5y ago
    Berkeley is a public university.
    - TedShiller 5y ago
      Just because something is public doesn't mean it has to be of poor quality.
      - frostburg 5y ago
        It does however raise certain issues if you're arguing for arbitrary governance due to property rights as gp is.
        TedShiller 5y ago
        Sure, but people shouldn't dismiss something bad happening to a public institution (as in this case) as inevitable, just because it's public.
twirlock 5y ago
ITT we express confusion that stooges in academia don't outrank judges and aren't above laws.
TedShiller 5y ago
This is a positive for Berkeley. Having had many friends graduate from there over the last 20 years, they all said it was massively overcrowded. People standing in lecture halls that were designed for half the students. TAs being overwhelmed, not able to give attention. I would even go further and reduce the population over time rather than just freezing it. Let Berkeley be the place it once was.
- thesausageking 5y ago
  What if by limiting enrollment it meant many of those friends hadn't been able to go there? Because that's what we're talking about: trading off a (possibly) better experience for a smaller student body with providing more opportunities for a larger number of people.
  - TedShiller 5y ago
    Having a very selective school in the Bay Area is a good thing, better than one that just keeps growing in size. You can't be super selective and huge. Hence Stanford vs Berkeley.
    - poopypoopington 5y ago
      Berkeley is super selective and huge mate.
      - TedShiller 5y ago
        > super selective and huge Why don't we give Nobel Prizes to everyone, since you said we can be super selective and huge?
      - babesh 5y ago
        It depends on your definition of huge. Berkeley is a graduate school masquerading as an undergraduate school. When I went, the undergraduate population was roughly 10k whereas the graduate population was roughly 20k. The undergraduate school is factors smaller than the largest undergraduate schools. EDIT: Largest undergraduate schools are around 60k! Even UofT Austin is around 40k. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/colleges-with-the-most-undergraduates https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-lis... EDIT2: The prestige comes from 1) famous grads 2) the professors who are supported by the graduate students. The undergrads gain from the reflected prestige.
KingMachiavelli 5y ago
A school has existed since 1868 yet people move near it and think they should have the final say on what the school does. Can the school counter sue Save Berkeley’s Neighborhood the using the CEQA since new residents have an impact on the environment, noise, housing and displacement? Not that I disagree, they added nearly 7x the students they planned to add due to reduced state funding so perhaps revisiting their plans is a good thing. Maybe they'll add more than just 150 faculty housing units. I think overall this just shows the uncertainty in higher education. Top tier schools can attract a practically limitless supply of students yet we can only add so many spots due to space constrains. Meanwhile there are dozens to hundreds of schools throughout the country that are closing due to declining enrollment (many deserved it since many of these schools were simply former agricultural schools, etc. that re-branded as universities to attract more students). Maybe instead of trying to squeeze every ounce of space on existing locations, these schools should open satellite schools throughout the country?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Can the school counter sue Save Berkeley’s Neighborhood the using the CEQA since new residents have an impact on the environment, noise, housing and displacement? Sure, if (1) Save Berkeley’s Neighborhood was responsible for some action requiring an EIR, and UC can make a colorable argument both that (2) SBN violated the requirements of CEQA with regard to the EIR, and that (3) this caused legally cognizable injury to UC such that the University has standing. Of course, none of those are true.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- temp8964 5y ago
  Can a state university expand to other states?
  - TuringNYC 5y ago
    It probably depends on the covenants of the particular institution, but there is precedence for this. Texas A&M, for example, has a campus in Qatar (not just another state, but another country!) and even confers Degrees there. https://www.qatar.tamu.edu/ https://www.qatar.tamu.edu/ Texas A&M is a public university https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_A%26M_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_A%26M_University
mchusma 5y ago
Environmental impact reports are a disease and need to be abolished or reformed dramatically. Like make it only apply to a few named categories of things.
- joshuaheard 5y ago
  They have been weaponized by activists. It can take up to a year to prepare one. Then the activists say things have changed over the year, so you must prepare another. And so on, so the project is indefinitely stalled.
- briga 5y ago
  You could be right but do you have a better idea? Without environmental impact reports it's likely that there would be nearly no natural land left in California. Most of the SF bay would likely have been reclaimed by now and the remaining natural environment (including air and water) would be even more polluted.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > but do you have a better idea? Of course; don't do them. They are worse than nothing.
    - edmundsauto 5y ago
      Do you support development work without looking into what it would do to a local ecosystem? That part seems worthwhile to prevent destroying sensitive habitats, etc.
      - asdff 5y ago
        They are weaponized these days far more often when doing something like replacing a drive thru with an apartment thats a couple stories high in the middle of the built urban environment. This is California. All available virgin land has been developed by now practically.
ffggvv 5y ago
abolish environmental reviews
jkhdigital 5y ago
Can we change the headline? It makes it sound as if the judge just up and decided one day to freeze enrollment, when in fact what happened is that a plaintiff specifically requested such an action, or that such an action was required pursuant to a ruling in the plaintiff’s favor in a specific case.
brainmapper 5y ago
As far as I can tell the UCB administration is not happy about increasing enrollment. But they don't really have control over this. The UC system decides how many students each campus must accept, and the campuses have to go along with it. UC Berkeley is not in control of this. (I work at UCB, and no one that I know is happy about the overcrowding.)
- secabeen 5y ago
  The UC system does the bidding of the state assembly here. I think the ultimate responsibility lies there.
deepakhj 5y ago
The same group that sued has also blocked new housing in Berkeley. This isn't a good faith lawsuit.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  > The same group that sued has also blocked new housing in Berkeley. This isn't a good faith lawsuit. How isn't it a good faith lawsuit? The group is unhappy with Berkeley's growth. So they've tried to block increased student housing as well as increased enrolment. It sounds to me like their position is entirely consistent. (I'm not taking a position on the issue at hand by the way.)
  - deepakhj 5y ago
    The group stated that enrollment should be capped until there's new housing. They also simultaneously argued that a housing project shouldn't move forward. Isn't that circular logic?
    - CogitoCogito 5y ago
      From the article: -------------------------- Seligman also ordered the UC Board of Regents to void its 2018 approval of the Upper Hearst project and to decertify the supplemental environmental impact report. Cal must redo the SEIR to address certain issues, including how student enrollment increases have affected noise, housing and displacement in Berkeley, the judge ruled. ... But Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods and the city of Berkeley sued, stating the SEIR was inadequate and did not comply with CEQA, the state’s environmental law. The city complained that the university was trying to sneak a huge growth in student enrollment into the SEIR without examining its impacts and the costs to Berkeley for providing emergency services. In 2005, in a long-range development plan, UC Berkeley had said it only anticipated increasing student enrollment by 1,650 people by 2020. But as the state legislature reduced funding to the UC system, the Regents ordered certain campuses, including Cal, to add more students to bring in income. In 2019, UC Berkeley said enrollment had gone up by 11,285 students. In 2020-21, student enrollment was 42,035 students. Berkeley sued in 2019 but dropped the suit when the City Council voted on July 13 to enter into an $83 million agreement with UC Berkeley. Cal will pay Berkeley $4.1 million a year over the next 16 years for its use of city services in exchange for Berkeley dropping its opposition to the new 2021 long-range development plan and environmental impact report. That left Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods to pursue its case against UC Berkeley. “The city could have negotiated a much better deal for Berkeley had they waited for this judgment,” Bokovoy wrote in a press release. “As it is they sold taxpayers short with a ‘pennies on the dollar’ annual payment and no enforceable commitments to build housing and mitigate impacts.” -------------------------- > The group stated that enrollment should be capped until there's new housing. They also simultaneously argued that a housing project shouldn't move forward. Isn't that circular logic? I'm not sure what specific housing project you're referring to, but this article is entirely consistent. Even so, they could be arguing that Berkeley shouldn't expand without increased housing and they could also be against UC Berkeley's proposed solutions to increase housing (say due to NIMBYism). In that case, it would not be contradictory or circular. They would just be against UC Berkeley's proposed solutions. So no I really still would say their position is entirely consistent. They don't want Berkeley to change in certain ways. They think that UC Berkeley's increased enrolment requires those same certain changes. Hence they're against the enrolment. The logic makes sense and is frankly quite straight-forward.

91 points by elsewhen 5y ago

It's really interesting that this is a judicial rather than a civic ruling, on what material basis can judges really make such a vague ruling? What are the 'measures' that the UC would have to meet if there are no specific codes or city bylaws they are not breaking ... how is this a matter for the judiciary? Can someone comment? Dragon?

Jtsummers 5y ago
The judge didn't come up with this ruling out of nowhere, someone had to file suit against UC Berkeley.
Fomite 5y ago
When you want to stop someone from doing something because you think it breaks the law, you file an injunction. That makes it a judicial thing. This is especially true for state agencies (like the UC system) - you basically have to sue them.
nomel 5y ago
This is a great question for us non-lawyers. Why is it being downvoted? I'm confused about the "how" rather than "what" or "why". I see what happened, and why the the judge made the decision, but how can a judge tell a business where they can be and how many they service, if there's nothing illegal going on? Public nuisance laws, or something similar?
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  > This is a great question for us non-lawyers. How is it a great question? In the US when two parties have a disagreement they can either discuss amongst themselves and resolve it, take it to a mediator to resolve it, or take it to the courts. In this instance, the courts became involved because UC Berkeley wasn't going to stop the expansion and the people and city felt that they had a case. Apparently the judge agreed with them. Like I said in my other comment, someone had to file a suit. The judge didn't intervene just because they were bored, someone filed suit. > how can a judge tell a business where they can be and how many they service, if there's nothing illegal going on? Read the article. Berkeley made initial expansion plans for around 1600 students by 2020, but exceeded 11k instead. This contradicted the initial agreement and plans with the city so the suit was filed. Also, UC Berkeley is not a business, it's a public state institution.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    I think the problem is that trial outcomes are often reported using language as if the judge personally endorsed the entire case of the victorious party, as opposed to simply deciding the case in their favor.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    It's a reasonable question because it's hard to fathom what could possibly be the legal grievance here. Your answer of 'disagreement / mediation / grievance / court' is frankly not very helpful, because it's simply not the case in the vast majority of disagreements. There has to be some legal grievance for the lawsuit. As it turns out, the issue is brought because apparently UCB, according to the Judge didn't do 'a good enough job' at assessing the social impacts of their growth. This is firstly, a very odd thing for a judge to do in my view, taking a stance in a very grey matter, moreover, the more salient issue is that the outcome of the impact assessment may not be relevant. If it turns out that the student increase will increase rents and home prices by 30%, well, so what then? For example "This contradicted the initial agreement" - what legally binding 'agreement' would a university have to have with a local municipality? Surely they'll want to work together and agree to invest here and there, but how does that turn into something binding? I'd like to know. Given all of this ambiguity, it's a pretty reasonable thing to ask for someone with material legal background for insight.
    - Jtsummers 5y ago
      It's a state court making a decision about a state law. They absolutely have jurisdiction. Judges make rulings like this all the time. Without these kinds of rulings, the final result would be determined by default. If Party A is doing something potentially harmful to Party B, and Party A is permitted to continue while everything plays out in court, then the result is a default ruling for Party A. Also, in the original question there was a nonsense phrase (civic ruling) which I took to mean civil ruling. If that's the correct interpretation, the courts in the US are involved in both civil (like this) and criminal matters. That's what they do. Regarding my 'disagreement /mediation / greivance / court' thing, that is how things get resolved, aside from violence or protest or just ignoring it, the principle methods of resolving disputes in the US are: discussion between the parties, mediation, the courts. That is a factual statement. Violence is not a legal manner of recourse. Ignoring it is obviously not what one group wants (so forces them towards discussion, mediation, or courts). Protest (probably happening) doesn't actually resolve most things on its own, unless it's able to shutdown business for one of the parties long enough to force them to the table or put them out of business. Protest mostly draws attention to an issue, which can force the hand of one side but is not universally successful.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I see what happened, and why the the judge made the decision, but how can a judge tell a business where they can be and how many they service Essentially, A judge found that the UC Berkeley campus and the UC Board of Regents violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to consider relevant factors in their handling environmental impact statements regarding UC Berkeley expansion, and directed the Regents and campus to nullify their illegal actions and halt further expansion until such expansion was lawfully approved. > if there's nothing illegal going on? The “if there's nothing illegal going on” premise is directly contrary to the ruling. The campus and Regents actions regarding the required environmental impact reports related to the expansion were found to be illegal, that's the whole basis for the decision.
- webmaven 5y ago
  > how can a judge tell a business where they can be and how many they service? UC Berkeley is a state agency, not a business.
  - nomel 5y ago
    I don't see how this matters. It's a separate entity run by policy decisions outside of the judges control. Judges interpret law, they don't direct state agencies on their whim. I see now that it was a legal problem with the environmental impact study. I misunderstood what was going on, and someone helped.
elliekelly 5y ago
The ruling is that Berkeley did break the law. Or, at least, they didn’t follow it. California has an environmental law called the California Environmental Quality Act[1] or CEQA. It sets forth a process that all state and local government entities (including state universities) must follow when undertaking new projects. My very superficial legal understanding of the CEQA is that it’s seriously complex. I’m on mobile so I’m having a hard time finding the document but to give you an idea of the complexity the state puts out an annual CEQA handbook with all the rules and guidance and recent cases and it’s something like 400 pages long. (Edit: Here’s a link to the PDF[2] of the 2021 Handbook.) At the heart of CEQA is a requirement that, prior to undertaking a new project, the entity has to complete an environmental assessment of how the proposed project will impact things like water use, pollution, noise, etc. Then they need to publish the report, get comment from the public, and, in certain instances, adjust the project plan to minimize the impact. CEQA also, somewhat controversially, allows for a private right of civil action. So when a state or local government entity in California doesn’t comply with CEQA then a person who is or may be negatively impacted by the failure to comply can file a civil suit and that’s what happened here. The reason the private right of action is controversial is because it’s sometimes (often?) used as pretext to get a court-order to prevent a project by people or groups who aren’t at all concerned for the environment but have some other motive. And, because the law is incredibly complex, it turns out it’s not a bad legal strategy for NIMBYs. (Edit: I just want to clarify that I don’t mean to imply the group who filed this suit are NIMBYs or environmental activists. I have zero idea as to their motives.) Anyway, this case wound up on this judge’s docket because a local group brought suit under CEQA alleging the University didn’t follow all of the requirements and the judge agreed. So he sent them back to do the process again. And in the meantime, he froze enrollment. (Again, I have a very superficial understanding of how it works so take everything I’ve said with a grain of salt. In practice it’s far more complex than what I’ve described.) [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Environmental_Quality_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Environmental_Qua... [2]https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf https://www.califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2021.pdf

systemBuilder 5y ago

If California could freeze all population at 2020-2021 levels, it would do it in a heartbeat! It's a racist white state (that played ZERO Motown in the 70's - Beach Boys only baby!) rigged to exploit immigrants as much as possible with migrant farm worker programs, migrant tech worker programs called H1B (75% of which work in CA) tax exploitation named prop13 (immigrant homebuyers pay ALL the property taxes whereas longtime white landowners pay Nothing!) and California invented the concept of a gold rush where the locals selling picks and shovels get rich while the immigrant prospectors get screwed - invented in 1848 but currently in progress with the internet boom of 1998-2021!

outside1234 5y ago

Not sure why a Judge gets to decide this but it makes sense. Why are we expanding Berkeley - in a super expensive area for students instead of expanding in Merced (or even Davis) - where is much less expensive.

TedShiller 5y ago
Exactly. Quality of education has gone down. Let's make it smaller again (not just freeze).
kjksf 5y ago
Because capitalism and private property and free will. Berkley doesn't get to tell you to live in a cheaper appartement. In return, you don't get to tell Berkley where they can open a new campus. I get that in this case the Judge decided to stop the expansion. I'm just responding to "Why are we expanding Berkeley" bit. There's no "we" here. There's only UC Berkley and they get to decide how to conduct business.
- frostburg 5y ago
  Berkeley is a public university.
  - TedShiller 5y ago
    Just because something is public doesn't mean it has to be of poor quality.
    - frostburg 5y ago
      It does however raise certain issues if you're arguing for arbitrary governance due to property rights as gp is.
      - TedShiller 5y ago
        Sure, but people shouldn't dismiss something bad happening to a public institution (as in this case) as inevitable, just because it's public.

twirlock 5y ago

ITT we express confusion that stooges in academia don't outrank judges and aren't above laws.

TedShiller 5y ago

This is a positive for Berkeley. Having had many friends graduate from there over the last 20 years, they all said it was massively overcrowded. People standing in lecture halls that were designed for half the students. TAs being overwhelmed, not able to give attention. I would even go further and reduce the population over time rather than just freezing it. Let Berkeley be the place it once was.

thesausageking 5y ago
What if by limiting enrollment it meant many of those friends hadn't been able to go there? Because that's what we're talking about: trading off a (possibly) better experience for a smaller student body with providing more opportunities for a larger number of people.
- TedShiller 5y ago
  Having a very selective school in the Bay Area is a good thing, better than one that just keeps growing in size. You can't be super selective and huge. Hence Stanford vs Berkeley.
  - poopypoopington 5y ago
    Berkeley is super selective and huge mate.
    - TedShiller 5y ago
      > super selective and huge Why don't we give Nobel Prizes to everyone, since you said we can be super selective and huge?
    - babesh 5y ago
      It depends on your definition of huge. Berkeley is a graduate school masquerading as an undergraduate school. When I went, the undergraduate population was roughly 10k whereas the graduate population was roughly 20k. The undergraduate school is factors smaller than the largest undergraduate schools. EDIT: Largest undergraduate schools are around 60k! Even UofT Austin is around 40k. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/colleges-with-the-most-undergraduates https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-lis... EDIT2: The prestige comes from 1) famous grads 2) the professors who are supported by the graduate students. The undergrads gain from the reflected prestige.

KingMachiavelli 5y ago

A school has existed since 1868 yet people move near it and think they should have the final say on what the school does. Can the school counter sue Save Berkeley’s Neighborhood the using the CEQA since new residents have an impact on the environment, noise, housing and displacement? Not that I disagree, they added nearly 7x the students they planned to add due to reduced state funding so perhaps revisiting their plans is a good thing. Maybe they'll add more than just 150 faculty housing units. I think overall this just shows the uncertainty in higher education. Top tier schools can attract a practically limitless supply of students yet we can only add so many spots due to space constrains. Meanwhile there are dozens to hundreds of schools throughout the country that are closing due to declining enrollment (many deserved it since many of these schools were simply former agricultural schools, etc. that re-branded as universities to attract more students). Maybe instead of trying to squeeze every ounce of space on existing locations, these schools should open satellite schools throughout the country?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Can the school counter sue Save Berkeley’s Neighborhood the using the CEQA since new residents have an impact on the environment, noise, housing and displacement? Sure, if (1) Save Berkeley’s Neighborhood was responsible for some action requiring an EIR, and UC can make a colorable argument both that (2) SBN violated the requirements of CEQA with regard to the EIR, and that (3) this caused legally cognizable injury to UC such that the University has standing. Of course, none of those are true.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
temp8964 5y ago
Can a state university expand to other states?
- TuringNYC 5y ago
  It probably depends on the covenants of the particular institution, but there is precedence for this. Texas A&M, for example, has a campus in Qatar (not just another state, but another country!) and even confers Degrees there. https://www.qatar.tamu.edu/ https://www.qatar.tamu.edu/ Texas A&M is a public university https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_A%26M_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_A%26M_University

mchusma 5y ago

Environmental impact reports are a disease and need to be abolished or reformed dramatically. Like make it only apply to a few named categories of things.

joshuaheard 5y ago
They have been weaponized by activists. It can take up to a year to prepare one. Then the activists say things have changed over the year, so you must prepare another. And so on, so the project is indefinitely stalled.
briga 5y ago
You could be right but do you have a better idea? Without environmental impact reports it's likely that there would be nearly no natural land left in California. Most of the SF bay would likely have been reclaimed by now and the remaining natural environment (including air and water) would be even more polluted.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > but do you have a better idea? Of course; don't do them. They are worse than nothing.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    Do you support development work without looking into what it would do to a local ecosystem? That part seems worthwhile to prevent destroying sensitive habitats, etc.
    - asdff 5y ago
      They are weaponized these days far more often when doing something like replacing a drive thru with an apartment thats a couple stories high in the middle of the built urban environment. This is California. All available virgin land has been developed by now practically.

ffggvv 5y ago

abolish environmental reviews

jkhdigital 5y ago

Can we change the headline? It makes it sound as if the judge just up and decided one day to freeze enrollment, when in fact what happened is that a plaintiff specifically requested such an action, or that such an action was required pursuant to a ruling in the plaintiff’s favor in a specific case.

brainmapper 5y ago

As far as I can tell the UCB administration is not happy about increasing enrollment. But they don't really have control over this. The UC system decides how many students each campus must accept, and the campuses have to go along with it. UC Berkeley is not in control of this. (I work at UCB, and no one that I know is happy about the overcrowding.)

secabeen 5y ago
The UC system does the bidding of the state assembly here. I think the ultimate responsibility lies there.

deepakhj 5y ago

The same group that sued has also blocked new housing in Berkeley. This isn't a good faith lawsuit.

CogitoCogito 5y ago
> The same group that sued has also blocked new housing in Berkeley. This isn't a good faith lawsuit. How isn't it a good faith lawsuit? The group is unhappy with Berkeley's growth. So they've tried to block increased student housing as well as increased enrolment. It sounds to me like their position is entirely consistent. (I'm not taking a position on the issue at hand by the way.)
- deepakhj 5y ago
  The group stated that enrollment should be capped until there's new housing. They also simultaneously argued that a housing project shouldn't move forward. Isn't that circular logic?
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    From the article: -------------------------- Seligman also ordered the UC Board of Regents to void its 2018 approval of the Upper Hearst project and to decertify the supplemental environmental impact report. Cal must redo the SEIR to address certain issues, including how student enrollment increases have affected noise, housing and displacement in Berkeley, the judge ruled. ... But Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods and the city of Berkeley sued, stating the SEIR was inadequate and did not comply with CEQA, the state’s environmental law. The city complained that the university was trying to sneak a huge growth in student enrollment into the SEIR without examining its impacts and the costs to Berkeley for providing emergency services. In 2005, in a long-range development plan, UC Berkeley had said it only anticipated increasing student enrollment by 1,650 people by 2020. But as the state legislature reduced funding to the UC system, the Regents ordered certain campuses, including Cal, to add more students to bring in income. In 2019, UC Berkeley said enrollment had gone up by 11,285 students. In 2020-21, student enrollment was 42,035 students. Berkeley sued in 2019 but dropped the suit when the City Council voted on July 13 to enter into an $83 million agreement with UC Berkeley. Cal will pay Berkeley $4.1 million a year over the next 16 years for its use of city services in exchange for Berkeley dropping its opposition to the new 2021 long-range development plan and environmental impact report. That left Save Berkeley’s Neighborhoods to pursue its case against UC Berkeley. “The city could have negotiated a much better deal for Berkeley had they waited for this judgment,” Bokovoy wrote in a press release. “As it is they sold taxpayers short with a ‘pennies on the dollar’ annual payment and no enforceable commitments to build housing and mitigate impacts.” -------------------------- > The group stated that enrollment should be capped until there's new housing. They also simultaneously argued that a housing project shouldn't move forward. Isn't that circular logic? I'm not sure what specific housing project you're referring to, but this article is entirely consistent. Even so, they could be arguing that Berkeley shouldn't expand without increased housing and they could also be against UC Berkeley's proposed solutions to increase housing (say due to NIMBYism). In that case, it would not be contradictory or circular. They would just be against UC Berkeley's proposed solutions. So no I really still would say their position is entirely consistent. They don't want Berkeley to change in certain ways. They think that UC Berkeley's increased enrolment requires those same certain changes. Hence they're against the enrolment. The logic makes sense and is frankly quite straight-forward.