A survey of 2,800 U.S. colleges prepared by the Institute of International Education and the U.S. State Department underscores once again how much the budget of the University of California relies on high tuition and fees paid by foreign students.

The survey showed California had far and away the most international students with 161,693. Some 42 percent of the students are from China and 13 percent are from India. Five UC campuses had at least 8,000 international students: UCLA (11,942), UC San Diego (10,652), UC Berkeley (10,063), UC Irvine (8,064) and UC Davis (8,048).

The numbers illustrate that for all the criticism leveled at UC President Janet Napolitano in a 2016 report by state Auditor Elaine Howle, the UC system’s most important fiscal strategy relies on attracting foreign students. They pay about $44,000 annually, triple what in-state students pay.

The audit showed that in 2008 – at the beginning of the Great Recession – about 5 percent of students in the UC system were international students or from other U.S. states. By 2016, the number was 15.3 percent. The large increase was linked by UC leaders to the sharp long-term decline in state financial support. Critics, however, said UC had refused to do any of the belt-tightening done in the rest of the state government in response to a 20 percent decline in state revenue a decade ago.

Howle’s most explosive allegation was that standards had been lowered so much for non-California applicants that qualified in-state students couldn’t get into to any UC. 

Napolitano rejected nearly all of Howle’s allegations but didn’t challenge her point that a huge change in UC admissions policies had been made with scant explanation to the public or to then-Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature. Under heavy pressure, she agreed to major increases in California student admissions – but not to stop relying on foreign students as cash cows. The main concession on that front from UC regents who strongly backed Napolitano: a 2017 decision to have a maximum of 18 percent of non-California students in the UC system. This has had little if any effect on how many are admitted because UC now enrolls far more total students – about 280,000 – then it did four years ago (248,000).

Californians enrolled in UC system set record this year

In June, UC announced that new records had been set in the number of Californians admitted as freshmen (71,655) and transfer students (28,752) at the system’s nine undergraduate campuses.

Meanwhile, it appears that tension related to the U.S.-China trade war has ended the years of annual increases in Chinese students at UC. According to recent reports, their enrollment is flat or slightly down at several campuses. UC San Diego Chancellor Pradeep Khosla lamented the development in an interview with the Los Angeles Times last month – not on fiscal grounds but because of the quality of the students, especially those in science majors.

But another factor besides tension between Washington and Beijing could be that colleges across the United States have reached the same conclusion that UC leaders did in 2008 and are now going after the same pool of high-paying international students as UC.

In August, USA Today reported that its analysis of federal data showed that “more than 240 public universities across the country admitted fewer in-state students in 2017 than they did five years earlier, and for 46 of those, the share of in-state students is down by at least 10 percent.”

University of California Regents have bought UC President Janet Napolitano’s story about how her office came to interfere with an audit of its performance ordered by the state Legislature, with regents saying they were disappointed by the scandal but prepared to move on after reprimanding Napolitano.

But there could be more fallout on two fronts: in the Legislature and in the governor’s race, where the frontrunner, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, is an ex-officio UC regent.

That’s because Napolitano’s story seems so implausible. According to an independent report prepared at regents’ behest by former California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno and the Hueston Henningan law firm, after state Auditor Elaine Howle sent surveys to UC campuses in October 2016 asking for their assessment of UC’s Office of the President, Seth Grossman, Napolitano’s chief of staff, and Bernie Jones, her deputy chief of staff, put out the word that they needed to review the responses. This was done even though Howle had emphasized the responses were supposed to be confidential. Subsequently, three campuses – UC Santa Cruz, UC Irvine and UC San Diego – revised their responses to make them more favorable to Napolitano’s office.

But Napolitano told the Legislature in May, and Moreno’s investigators more recently, that while she approved the plan to have her office review the responses, she did so because she wanted to ensure the responses were correct – not because she wanted to protect her image. She also said campuses had requested help.

Moreno’s report did not suggest the UC president was lying. But it found no evidence that campuses sought help with their responses. And it noted that UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal said that he was chewed out by Napolitano for his campus sending in a response to Howle without running it by her staff. UC Santa Cruz’s response was the harshest of any campus, giving Napolitano’s office one “poor” and three “fair” ratings out of the 10 categories in the survey questions. After Blumenthal’s telephone conversation with what he described as a “furious” Napolitano, UC Santa Cruz changed the “poor” and “fair” ratings to good and upgraded three “good” ratings to “exceptional.”

Napolitano said she remembers her conversation with Blumenthal as being routine, not angry. But Blumenthal’s account is consistent with other findings in the Moreno report, such as Napolitano’s declaration in a text message that Howle was on a “witch hunt.”

The two aides cited in the Moreno report resigned a week before the report’s release and declined substantive comment on the allegations against them.

Lawmakers unlikely to be satisfied with handling of scandal

The Legislature, which passed a bill last session subsequently signed by Gov. Jerry Brown making it a crime for a state agency to interfere with a state audit, could consider follow-up legislation. There’s considerable residual anger over Napolitano’s May testimony to a joint legislative hearing in which she repeatedly denied personal wrongdoing of any kind. Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, R-Dublin, vice chair of the Higher Education Committee, cited that testimony last week in calling for Napolitano to be fired.

In the gubernatorial race, UC-related sparks seem just as likely to fly. While Newsom told the Los Angeles Times that he considered regents’ decision to reprimand Napolitano “insignificant” – suggesting he wanted stronger punishment – he joined the unanimous vote to retain her as UC president.

This is tough to square with Newsom’s reported comments about how he would deal with corruption and ethical issues in state government: “I will not be known for being timid about this or anything else. Gov. Brown says reform is overrated; I say it’s underrated.”

As for Howle’s part, she wants regents to take additional actions beyond reprimanding Napolitano, according to a letter she sent to regents and an internal report by her office that were obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Howle asked regents to “consider disciplining university employees who repeatedly interfered with a state audit, tried to hide their actions, misled investigators and withheld requested information until threatened with court action,” the Times reported.

At the regents’ Nov. 17 meeting in San Francisco, they began consideration of measures meant to “clarify and strengthen” how UC officials who report both to the regents and to Napolitano must deal with state audits.

According to CBS News, Napolitano was responding to about 24 student protesters who had taken off their clothes down to their underwear in opposition to the proposed 28 percent tuition hikes over five years.

“It’s an insult to have her as the president of UC,” said protester Kristian Kim. “I don’t know where she’s coming from, but I’m assuming she’s never had to deal with these issues personally. So I can understand why there would be a disconnect there.”

Napolitano later apologized.

CBS News added that, earlier in the meeting, public comments from Napolitano directly to the students were more congenial. She said, “They want to be sure that their voices are being heard and I want to commit to them that their voices are being heard.”

Napolitano’s annual salary is $570,000 per year. That’s 42 percent more than that of President Obama, whom she served under as the secretary of Homeland Security.

The latest Bee headline suggests Napolitano may have the upper hand in initial skirmishes. But the former Arizona governor is doomed.

Napolitano doesn’t understand how California politics works. She doesn’t remotely get that the UC president’s office isn’t a political power center. Her job is more for people with a courtier streak than a my-way-or-the-highway streak.

Beyond that, Napolitano is a Golden State newcomer who after 14 months doesn’t have remotely enough political capital to take on a California institution just re-elected in a landslide. She also has no idea how toxic tuition hikes are to the state’s dominant Democrats.

But what is perhaps most tone-deaf of all is that Napolitano has launched this fight even as she defies a new state law that requires UC to be way more transparent about its finances so when it imposes tuition hikes, elected leaders understand why they are impossible to avoid.

I wrote about this angle in Tuesday’s U-T San Diego:

It’s hard to believe any government agency in a democracy would think it had no obligation to disclose essential details about its finances. Yet that has long been the norm with the University of California system and its multibillion-dollar annual budget.

This was supposed to change with enactment of a 2013 state law that requires UC to break down how — and for what — it uses state funding, tuition, research grants and other incoming dollars. This was done to force UC to offer a clear financial case when considering tuition hikes and enrollment changes. Presently, UC officials offer a vague “average cost of instruction” per student instead of a detailed analysis.

Beginning Oct. 1, university officials were supposed to provide such data. Not only has UC refused to comply, it has done so even as UC President Janet Napolitano proposed annual tuition hikes for the next five years.

In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Napolitano insisted UC wasn’t being “defiant.” But she also belittled the law as an inconvenient “budget exercise.”

This is inexcusable. Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature need to send Napolitano a clear, strong message that UC must comply with a plainly written — and badly needed — state law.

How long until Napolitano gives up on her tuition-hike push and launches a laughable attempt at face-saving? I’d say the over-under is Dec. 24. She’ll announce her new stance on Christmas Eve at 5 p.m. to hope it minimizes her embarrassment at being massively schooled by Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr.

But high-profile doesn’t mean appropriate or qualified. Being a president of a university system is a uniquely challenging job. I thought the selection made little sense from day one.

“Why Napolitano?

“She has no past connections to UC. She is a lawyer without a background in academia or any history as a scholar. She is not a superstar fundraiser, as university presidents are increasingly expected to be.

“And if Napolitano was chosen for her supposed skills as a manager, we wonder what that view is based on. Homeland Security is not remotely considered a well-run agency. It was stitched together from more than 20 existing agencies after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and has been decried for years as bloated, clunky and secretive by a bipartisan array of critics. In December, it was labeled the worst large agency to work for in the federal government after a comprehensive independent survey.

“Homeland Security needed a reformer. So does UC as it deals with budget headaches, unfunded retirement liabilities and the threat/opportunity posed by the rise of online education.”

‘Thoughtful’? Nope. That’s not in her skill set

On Wednesday, Napolitano gave her first major speech, at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, and the Sacramento Bee editorial writer who covered it could scarcely have been more disappointed.

“With no record as a scholar or in campus administration, she had to show that she would bring more than her background as a politician and political appointee to the job. … [But] she sounded like she was trying inoculate herself against protests of her tenure at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, rather than offer a principled, thoughtful vision of the future of the University of California. …

“More than 1,500 words into the speech, Napolitano backed into the issue of student and faculty diversity. This could have been a strong, original statement coming from the leader of one of the nation’s leading public university systems on the importance of increasing the variety of life experiences and perspectives on campus to enhance the academic mission and ‘opportunity society’ of the future.

“Instead, the former Arizona governor made general statements about the UC as a vehicle for social advancement and then announced new money for three diversity programs. …

“But why focus on ‘subsets’ of the university community in this first major address? What is Napolitano’s vision for access and affordability for all qualified California students, not just small subsets? What is her vision of the 10-campus system?”

Why even expect her to have a ‘vision’ of UC?

The problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes Napolitano has a “vision” of what she wants UC to be. She wasn’t a visionary U.S. attorney, Arizona governor or Homeland Security czar. Why would she be a visionary when it comes to handling a uniquely demanding job with a huge number of moving parts?

Some politicians may be suited to being university presidents, where they can act as fundraisers and as salesmen for the university brand. But few are suited to be university system presidents. It’s a different and much more demanding job.

If Daniel Patrick Moynihan could be brought back to life, I think he’d be suitable. But not the Napolitanos of the political world.

Out of a potential pool of more than 300 candidates, Department of Homeland Security Secretary and former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano was unanimously nominated to fill in the shoes of retiring UC President Mark Yudof. The UC Board of Regents will vote Thursday on her appointment. If approved, Napolitano will be the 20th president of the UC system and first woman to lead in its 145-year history.

UC Regent Sherry Lansing chaired a 10-member special search committee, by which Napolitano was recommended in a unanimous vote. In a statement, Lancing called Napolitano “a distinguished and dedicated public servant who has earned trust at the highest, most critical levels of our country’s government. She has proven herself to be a dynamic, hard-working and transformative leader.”

California Community Colleges Chancellor Brice W. Harris issued a statement echoing similar sentiments of praise:

“The nomination of Secretary Napolitano to become the next president of the University of California is a truly inspired choice worthy of this great system of higher education. Her focus on education as governor of Arizona and the skills and leadership she has demonstrated as Homeland Security secretary make her uniquely qualified to lead the University of California.”

Even Gov. Jerry Brown said Napolitano had “strength of character and an outsider’s mind that will well serve the students and faculty” and that it would be “exciting to work with her.” Which is rather interesting, considering he criticized the trend of hiring out-of-state presidents in 2011, and wanted UC and CSU officials to specifically seek out Californians.

Napolitano’s lack of academic experience

Contrast that with the reaction of former state senator and education reformer Gloria Romero, who said she was “stunned” upon hearing the news. Romero told me the nomination was a “political placement” and “not wise for the UC system.” The University of California system, she said, is a “premiere institute of research scholarship and faculty.”

“I admire her for what she’s done,” Romero said of Napolitano. “She was a governor and did oversee the University of Arizona system, but this is the UC system.”

Romero questioned Napolitano’s credentials and said the UC president should be someone that would be qualified to oversee “the collaboration and development of curriculum, the training and appreciation for research, and equipping the next generation of scholars.”

She pointed to Charles Reed, the former chancellor of the California State University system, whose tenure, she said, was “always very contentious” because of his minimal ability to “understand or appreciate the role of faculty in the development of curriculum.”

When I asked former UC Regent Ward Connerly of the American Civil Liberties Institute if he thought Secretary Napolitano was qualified to oversee the UC system, he simply said, “Doubtful.”

“There is no evidence that she has any academic experience,” he said of Napolitano. “Faculty often insist on someone that has academic experience.”

Indeed, Napolitano’s credentials fall far short of current UC President Mark Yudof and those before him.

Yudof came to the UC system after being chancellor of the University of Texas system from 2002 to 2008. Before that, he was president of the four-campus University of Minnesota system during 1997-2008. He was also a faculty member and administrator at the University of Texas at Austin for 26 years and dean of its law school from 1984 to 1994, as well as the university’s executive vice president and provost from 1994 to 1997.

Robert C. Dynes, the UC president before Yudof, was a professor of physics at the UC Berkeley during his tenure from 2003 to 2008. He was also the chancellor for UC San Diego from 1996 to 2003, and had been a part of the UC system since 1990.

Former UC President Richard C. Atkinson served before Dynes from 1995 to 2003 and had been chancellor of UC San Diego for 15 years. He was also the former director of the National Science Foundation, past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, former chair of the Association of American Universities, and a long-term member of the faculty at Stanford University.

These picks were all clear-cut academics. But the closest that Secretary Napolitano comes to these UC presidents is that she has a law degree. She has no research under her belt, no experience overseeing any academic systems, never taught a college class and isn’t even a native of California, even though proponents of Napolitano’s nomination say that, as governor of Arizona, she was focused “extensively on education.”

Playing politics with UC nomination

What we’re actually seeing, said Ward Connerly, is a “revolving door with academia and Democrat institutions.”

“If you go back and look at the Clinton era, for example,” he told me, “a number of academics were appointed in the second term of Clinton’s administration to prominent university positions.”

And it’s no secret the UC regents and faculty have been very supportive of Obama and his academic policies.

In fact, UC Regent Sherry Lansing, former CEO of Paramount Pictures and head of the search for the incoming UC president, had donated $1,000 to Barack Obama as early as 2004. She’s given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democrat Party, its candidates and its PACs.

The nomination looks like a win-win for the Obama administration, as Napolitano, who has become entrenched in scandals on sexual discrimination, immigration enforcement, the Boston bombings and downplaying terrorism, steps down from her post in the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, Politico notes, her resignation gives Obama “major leeway” to pick a new DHS secretary without needing any Republican support, if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid follows through with his threat to go ‘nuclear’ and change filibuster rules.

It makes you wonder, asked Gloria Romero, “What is she doing? Who called whom? Who negotiated what and how did they place her? With these scandals brewing, it just doesn’t make sense.”

Ward Connerly told me it was “hard to say if faculty would oppose” such a nomination, or if the academic senate would respect her at all. “UC needs someone adept at bringing outside financial support,” he said. “While we seem to have turned a corner on the economy, UC is not out of the woods yet.”

The special session to vote on Secretary Napolitano’s nomination occurs Thursday, July 18, at 1:45 pm.

(Katie Hillery contributed research to this article.)

By Chris Reed

I think Gov. Jerry Brown’s good image in the media is driven much more by how competent/effective he seems in contrast to Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis than by actual success in making California a better state. He is best defined as the tax collector for the public employee state, not as someone concerned about all Californians.

But I do think he’s much more frugal than the average Democrat, and he showed it again Tuesday: