MOVING TO FRONT FROM AUGUST 17--UPDATED, AND COMMENTS ARE OPEN FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
...has implications for the academic freedom of faculty as well. Suppose a faculty member needs to do lab or other in-person work with a colleague in one of the benighted states, and ordinarily they could utilize allocated research money for this travel. Under current California law, they can no longer utilize that money, thus infringing upon their ability to do their research. This seems to me a violation of their contractual and constitutional rights to academic freedom, although hardly the most egregious kind on offer lately. If anyone knows of any faculty litigating this matter, shoot me an email.
UPDATE: A law professor in the University of California system writes:
My understanding is that the funds that UC faculty use for travel come from sources that are not, legally speaking, considered to be "state funds." I'm not sure what the precise definitions of state funds and non-state funds are, but my impression is that a large percentage of the money flowing through the UC system is considered "non-state." See this FAQ sheet on this legislation from UC Berkeley's travel office. Frequently Asked Questions Regarding AB 1887 Requirements | Travel (berkeley.edu). Considering the availability of "non-state funds" to researchers who need to travel to the prohibited states, I don't think this legislation has had any impact on anyone's ability to do research, travel to academic conferences, etc. Perhaps your readers can provide examples of actual restrictions, but when I needed to travel to one such state, I was told there was no problem with reimbursing me.
ANOTHER: A philosopher in the UC system writes:
I suspect the restrictions haven’t had a big impact on academics. First, as the UC law professor points out, some programs have non-state resources available. Most departments with different pots of money are always playing shell games. This pot allows reimbursements of alcohol at colloquia, this pot does not; this pot allows paying grad students; this other one doesn’t. One adjusts accordingly. Same thing can happen with research travel expenses. Second, the flip side of this is that there are many small programs lacking non-state funds. The non-state funds typically come from donors and have fewer restrictions on their use. These programs cannot play this shell game and could be affected. But — how may of these small programs actually provide faculty with travel funds? Put a bit too crudely, rich units can play the shell game and not be affected, and poor units who can’t play the shell game probably don’t offer that perk. The cash-strapped units are unaffected in the sense of when you have nothing, you have nothing to lose.
