University of California announced its 22nd president
(FOX40.COM) — The University of California Board of Regents has approved the appointment of James B. Milliken as the 22nd president of UC's world-renowned system of 10 campuses, six academic health centers, and three nationally affiliated laboratories.
According to a statement released by the University of California, Milliken has been serving as the chancellor of the University of Texas since 2018. His career also includes serving as the chancellor of The City University of New York from 2014 to 2018, president of the University of Nebraska from 2004 to 2014, and senior vice president at the University of North Carolina from 1998 to 2004.
'The University of California is universally regarded as the preeminent public research university in the world, and I am deeply honored to have an opportunity to join the many talented faculty, staff, and campus leaders in their vital work. It is more important than ever that we expand the education, research, health care, and public service for which UC is so widely admired and which has benefited so many Californians,' said Milliken.
UC officials stated that he is guided by his commitment to expand opportunities and student success. Milliken has been a leader in expanding access to high-education for low-income students.
Grand Theft Auto VI release date pushed back to 2026, Rockstar says
When he was the chancellor of UT, he held an initiative to cover the full cost of tuition and fees for students who qualified, which included families whose incomes were under $100,000.
The UC said in their statement that Milliken's leadership at UT also included record-setting enrollment levels, low college debt, and almost $5 billion in annual research expenditures, ranking second in the nation.
University of California President to step down at end of upcoming academic year
'Chancellor Milliken embodies the qualities and leadership experiences the University of California community needs at this moment,' said Janet Reilly, chair of the UC Board of Regents. 'He understands how critical UC's contributions are to the state and the country, and he has decades of experience leading public institutions during times of unprecedented change in higher education. Chancellor Milliken is simply the right person for UC at just the right time.'
Milliken will be entering his new role in August with the board's approval salary of $1,475,000, said UC authorities. He will be taking over for President Drake, who has served as the University's president since 2020 and who announced he would step down in July.
The six-month-long search for the University's systemwide leader started in November of last year, which was guided by criteria approved by the regents, said officials. The team was filled with stakeholders, including faculty, students, staff, alumni, and community partners.
'Serving on the search committee was a tremendous responsibility and an opportunity to represent student voices,' said Student Regent Josiah Beharry. 'Throughout this process, we were searching for more than just a leader — we were looking for someone who could speak the language of equity with action, who understands that affordability is not a privilege, but a promise.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Michael Phillips: In a world of easily manipulated images, can movies retain their magic?
I love getting faked out by the movies. I love believing the impossible, if only for a moment. Moviewise, I live for a lot of things; one of them, by which I was floored at the age 5, was Buster Keaton's 'Cops' (1922) and his startling genius as a physical and comic presence. Half the time, at that age, I wasn't sure if what I was watching was actually happening. That's how it is with beautiful illusions, created from real risks that become the audience's reward. When the right people collaborate on the right movie, it sometimes happens: a fresh combination of legitimately dangerous stunt work and crafty but not frantic editing, along with the inevitable layer of digital effects elements. What do you get? Honest fakery. The best kind. The kind that elicits a single, astonished, delighted response in the mind of the beholder: Can I believe what I just saw? Across eight 'Mission: Impossible' movies, including the one now in theaters, Tom Cruise has been doing the damnedest stunts for nearly 30 years to provoke that response. Action movies can make anybody do anything on screen. Cruise doesn't do it alone; the digital effects teams stay pretty busy on the 'M:I' franchise. Cruise is now 62, and denying it with every maniacal sprint down some faraway city's waterfront boulevard. He knows that dangling, at high speed and altitude, from various parts of an antagonist's biplane in 'Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning' is a good, old-fashioned selling point, in an era crowded with deceptions. In 'Final Reckoning' we don't see the harnesses and cables ensuring that stunt's relative safety. Those implements have been digitally erased, a visual filmmaking practice now as common as the common cold. But there he is, the secret agent ascending and descending, with someone trying to kill him. Tom Cruise, doing something most of us wouldn't. Lately, though, the movie industry's most sought-after audience response — can you believe what we just saw? — lands differently than it did a few years ago. We mutter that question more darkly now, with troubling regularity. And it's not when we're at the movies. The real world lies to us visually all the time. An onslaught of photographs and videos are presented as verified visual evidence without the verification part. It happens everywhere around the world, every day. And I wonder if it's altering, and corroding, the bargain we make with the movies we see. Can honest fakery in the name of film escapism compete with the other kinds of fakery permeating our visual lives? 'It's an interesting question,' says University of California-Berkeley computer science professor Hany Farid, a specialist in digital forensics and manipulated media detection. 'It was easier to separate the movies from real life in the analog days, before digital. Now we live in a world where everything we see and hear can be manipulated.' The real-world stakes are high, Farid warns, because so much evidence in courts of law rests on the truthfulness of visual evidence presented. He says he's been asked to verify a dizzying number of photos for a variety of purposes. The questions never end: 'Is this image really from Gaza? Is this footage from Ukraine real? Is the image Donald Trump holds up on TV real, or manipulated for political purposes?' Farid's referring there to the alleged and quickly debunked veracity of the photo the president held up on camera during his March 2025 ABC News interview with Terry Moran. In the photo, Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, deported to an El Salvadoran prison, is shown as having 'MS-13' gang-signifying tattoos on his hand. The image, widely cited as having been altered, doesn't qualify as a deepfake, Farid says. 'It's not even a shallow-fake.' Manipulated images and audio have been with us as long as technology has made those images and sounds possible. Not long ago, manipulated falsehood and verifiable visual truth were a little easier to parse. 'When we went to the movies,' Farid says, 'we knew it wasn't real. The world was bifurcated: There were movies, which were entertainment, and there was reality, and they were different. What's happened is that they've started to bleed into each other. Our ground, our sense of reality, is not stable anymore.' Part of that is artificial intelligence, 'no question,' says Farid. 'Generative AI is not just people creating images that didn't exist or aren't what they're pretending to be. They accumulate to the point where we're living in a world in which everything is suspect. Trust is shaken, if not gone.' And here's the blurred line concerning the movies and real life, Farid says. Earlier, 'when we viewed images and video, or listened to audio, we thought they were real and generally we were right. And when we went to the movies, we knew the opposite: that they weren't real. Reality and entertainment — two different worlds. Now, though, they're bleeding into each other. The ground is not stable anymore.' That, in Farid's view, has a lot to do with contemporary American politics and a climate of strategic mistrust created by those in power. 'The outright lying,' he says, is 'dangerous for democracy and for society. And it makes the idea of believing in movies sort of weird.' Our entertainment can't get enough of AI as a villain right now. On HBO, we have 'Mountainhead' with its Muskian creator of next-generation deepfake software too good to pass up, or slow down. Meantime, the plot of the new 'Mission: Impossible' hinges on AI so fearsome and ambitious, the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Though, for some of us, seeing Ethan Hunt dangle from a biplane, however rickety the narrative excuses for that to happen, is more fun. So we turn, still, to the movies for honest fakery we can trust. But these are strange days. As Farid puts it: 'You sit in the theater, you immerse yourself in the fantasy. But so much of our real world feels like that now — a fantasy.' Maybe it's time to retire the phrase 'seeing is believing.' ——— (Michael Phillips is the Chicago Tribune film critic.) ———
a day ago
'Sinners' puts 'truth on screen' for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
CHOCTAW, Miss. -- It's a small part in a big movie, but for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, their scene in "Sinners" is a huge deal. The horror movie blockbuster, starring Michael B. Jordan as a gangster turned vampire slayer, paints a brief but impactful portrait of the tribe using Choctaw actors and cultural experts. For some, it's the first time they've seen the Choctaw way of life accurately portrayed on the big screen. In the scene, a posse of Choctaw, riding on horseback and in an old truck, arrives at a small farmhouse to warn the couple that lives there of coming danger. When the couple refuses their help, a Choctaw man wishes them luck in his native language before riding off. 'I've not seen another movie that has our language, like, spoken correctly,' said Cynthia Massey, a cultural consultant for 'Sinners.' Massey runs the tribe's Chahta Immi Cultural Center alongside Sherrill Nickey and department director Jay Wesley. All three were hired as cultural consultants to ensure a genuine depiction of the tribe in the film. Together, they sifted through archives, researching how their ancestors would have dressed, spoken and acted in the 1930s, when 'Sinners' takes place. 'I was honored and humbled by the fact that they wanted a true representation,' said Wesley, who also acted in the movie. Wesley connected the filmmakers to Choctaw actors and artifacts like the beaded sashes the Choctaw characters wear in the movie. Those sashes are now part of a 'Sinners' display at the cultural center. The movie's introduction also features a short snippet of a Choctaw war chant, performed by Wesley's daughter, Jaeden Wesley, who is a student at the University of California, Los Angeles. While recording, Jaeden Wesley said the filmmakers told her they wanted the Choctaw people to hear their music in the movie. 'We were catering to our own people, even in that short little second,' Jaeden Wesley said. Shining a spotlight on often overlooked cultures and topics, like the Choctaw people, is part of the mission at Proximity Media, which produced 'Sinners.' The company was founded by 'Sinners' director Ryan Coogler, his wife and film producer, Zinzi Coogler, and producer Sev Ohanian. 'It was never a question for us that if we were going to portray the Mississippi Choctaw, we got to have the right people who can tell us, who can tell Ryan, what we're not knowing, what we're not thinking,' Ohanian said. 'It was all because we're trying to serve Ryan's story of like putting truth on screen." Ohanian and his co-founders didn't stop with Choctaw consultants; they enlisted a small army of experts who advised on the confluence of cultures mingling in the Mississippi Delta, where the film is set. The resulting cinematic world was so well received, community organizers penned an open letter, inviting Coogler and his fellow filmmakers to visit the Delta. Last week, the Cooglers, Ohanian and others took up the offer, attending a 'Sinners' screening in Clarksdale, Mississippi. Clarksdale is where the film's events unfold. 'I hope this encourages other filmmakers to find opportunities to be authentic in their storytelling and to look at this rich tapestry of culture that's right here in America,' Ohanian said, noting the film industry has historically misrepresented nonwhite groups. For Wesley and his fellow consultants, the hope is the film will cultivate curiosity in audiences, encourage them to learn more about Choctaw culture and visit the Chahta Immi Cultural Center. 'It's important to be connected to this culture because this was here before the public was here,' Massey said. 'Probably three-quarters of Mississippi was Choctaw land, and now we only have 350,000 acres.' They say Choctaw participation in the film has cultivated a sense of pride among tribe members. Nickey hopes it will encourage a sort of cultural renaissance at a time when she says fewer and fewer Choctaw speak their native language. 'I know for a fact that there are a lot of kids out there that don't even know how to speak our language. They only speak English,' Nickey said. 'I hope they know it's okay to speak our language.'
New York Times
a day ago
- New York Times
Lorna Simpson: Painting as a Weapon of Freedom
Some of our most interesting artists have one thing in common. They do outstanding work early on, then, rather than coasting by recycling that success, they complicate it, even change artist Lorna Simpson is one these restless souls, and she has the technical and imaginative chops to make major changes work, as is evident in a corner-turning retrospective of paintings, 'Source Notes,' now at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In the late 1980s and 1990s, Simpson gained a strong reputation as a standout among a new generation of conceptual photographers and artists who — following 'Pictures Generation' progenitors like Cindy Sherman a decade earlier — used photographic techniques somewhat the way painters used paint. Through a traditionally point-and-shoot, ostensibly reality-capturing medium, they created entirely fictional images. Simpson began as a straight-up picture-taker. A native New Yorker — born in Brooklyn in 1960, and raised in Queens — she studied photography at the School of Visual Arts and initially identified her work with the genre of 'street photography.' Graduate school at the University of California, San Diego, where Conceptualism was the reigning mode, added a new dimension to that early impulse. So was the perception that her career opportunities in the field were limited: 'Being a Black woman photographer was like being nobody,' as she has put it. So she saw no reason not to experiment both with her medium and with the subjects that interested her, namely the politics of gender and race. To that end she developed a studio-based style that combined staged images, notably shots of unnamed Black women posing in plain white shifts against a neutral backdrop, their faces turned away from the camera or out of its range, with results that evoke voyeuristic 19th-century ethnological documents, mug shots, and performance art stills. Most of these images have incorporated short texts that hint at explanatory narratives, some violent, without actually providing anything explicit. Creating on aura of mystery has been her generative M.O., one she has applied to film and installation work as well as to still photography. What has changed in the past decade is her primary medium. Around 2014, she began, for the first time since her pre-art-school years, to focus on painting, and the Met exhibition is a tight but monumental survey of this new work. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
