Extra

While we are pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld the trial court’s imposition of a temporary pause on enrollment growth pending UC’s compliance with completing an adequate environmental analysis of enrollment growth, we’d like to assure deserving California high school students that we are as disappointed as they are that UC has tried to use them as pawns in UC’s attempts to avoid mitigating the impacts from the massive enrollment increases over the past few years.

By creating a tremendous housing shortage in Berkeley, the Regents have made it impossible for many students, particularly students from lower income families, to attend Berkeley and the data show that Pell Grant recipients have fallen from 34% to 26%, with the housing crisis a major contributor to the decline.

We have offered many times to settle our case in exchange for UC Berkeley’s agreement to a legally binding commitment to increase housing before they increase enrollment. We have been rebuffed every time, most recently by Chancellor Christ in early December. 

We wholeheartedly agree with Justice Liu, who said in his dissent, “the parties may engage in good faith negotiations or mediation to expeditiously settle this dispute. Indeed, given the stakes on all sides, it is hard to think of a case where a negotiated settlement seems more imperative for the good of the local community and our state.I.” 

Further we agree with Justice Liu when he says “It does not serve the university's long-term interest to negatively impact the local environment, and an outcome that negatively impacts the educational future of thousands of students would not appear to serve the long-term interest of litigants like SBN. It is not too late to find a solution that mitigates the local community's environmental concerns without leaving 3,050 of our young people behind.” 

We look forward to meeting with President Drake to get the settlement process started.