The CSU system is going to have to to make tough consolidation decisions soon because you can't have declining urban and suburban campuses at the same time.
Vanderbilt University opened a franchise somewhere in California recently. The politics aren't that different though so won't be too much of a shock
There are similar arguments about building housing in a flood zone.
Instead, we should be building more housing in safer places.
In that specific area of Santa Rosa, now that it’s burned it won’t burn like that again for a few decades — it’s not like SoCal LA where it goes up every ten years like clockwork due to chaparral — and it turned out that no one had been enforcing “safe distance around home clear of brush and trees” and so it’s probably now the lowest wildfire risk city in the entire state to build homes in as a result: proper code enforcement, safety protocols, and a case study of how fire spreads through blown embers, dry roofs, wall-adjacent bushes, and open vents.
The fires reached all the way to the highway and very nearly jumped it to burn towards the ocean and they were prepared to sacrifice the entire eastern half of the city to prevent that, because Marin and Sevastopol refuse to thin their trees and it would have spread in a single day to all of North Bay if they let it cross. (And, yes, even Marin deserves not to be razed by fire, however much ire they’ve earned!) So it turns out that building homes near any forest is a bad idea if you’re not also thinning out the forest with selective logging, and as a result the entirety of Northern California and Western Oregon are more or less ‘places with high wildfire risk’. It doesn’t have to be that way, but certainly it will be until leaders grow a spine and stop capitulating to the existing homeowners.
I wrote a rather detailed paper about this with a dozen references spanning the past century for school last year; no AI required, just a handful of luxurious 2500-word days and then an couple more for editing. Best week of the year. Each wildfire costs $100-150M of California GDP in direct and indirect impacts; at $15k/yr fulltime minimum wage, hiring a thousand laborers to carry hand axes into the forest and thin them for a full year — machines can’t traverse and even if they could, machine logging and controlled burns can only happen during 4 months out of 12 — would prevent at least one wildfire (breakeven point) and every one prevented after that would be pure profit for the state economy. You’d think greed would drive them to do it, but apparently it’s anathema to suggest manual labor can solve problems anymore. Maybe someday Santa Rosa or Sonoma County will work up the courage to do it :)
Is this a political coalition thing or is there a real teacher-related reason they don't like it?
As others note, there are a lot of reasons for teachers to refuse or hate AI, though in my experience most don't know shit about it and just want students to stop using it as an expedient. I, for instance, take a look at the tiny Dell cubes that have barely powered our Windows workstations and hilariously bedraggled Prometheus units and anticipate "well, we can't even afford to update these pieces of shit, so I suppose as a 'Microsoft shop' we'll be on a upgrade path to CoPilot-enabled cloud computing or some bullshit like that, then it'll really be all over" so my primary concerns are infrastructural. But god yeah the AI writing I get, jesus. These kids think they're driving around in the AI equivalent of Lambos, but free tier CoPilot is a used 2017 Chevy Cruze.
No, but that would make it a "political coalition thing", which is why I asked
Well, of course. Horse buggy manufacturers and drivers were dead set against automobiles.