<p>This issue warrants discussion by people thoroughly familiar with the nuances of constitutional law. I am not one of those people; however, I question the constitutionality of the UC Berkeley-KAUST agreement because the Framers of the U.S. Constitution made provisions to protect the United States from influence by foreign governments. According to the U.S. Constitution:</p>
<p>1) Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 states: (The Congress shall have the power) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; </p>
<p>2) Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 states: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.</p>
<p>3) Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 states: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. </p>
<p>4) Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 states: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.</p>
<p>UC Berkeley is a (state) government-supported public university. KAUST is also a government-supported public university. The UC Berkeley-KAUST agreement appears to be an alliance between the State of California and Saudi Arabia in violation of the U.S. Constitution.</p>
<p>The California Constitution’s Article IX, Section 9, which establishes the University of California as “a public trust,” states: “… The university shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its regents and in the administration of its affairs…” Saudi Arabia is a foreign state which uses the Qur’an as its constitution, and bases its government upon the *Sharia<a href=“Islamic%20law”>/i</a>. It appears that in agreeing to accept money from and provide services to Saudi Arabia, UC Berkeley has violated the California Constitution by administering its affairs subject to political and sectarian influence.</p>
<p>I don’t question the constitutionality of the UC Berkeley-KAUST agreement (as well as the constitutionality of the University of Texas at Austin-KAUST agreement) simply because KAUST is a Saudi public university. I would question the constitutionality of such an agreement no matter which foreign government was involved. Stanford University, a private institution, has more autonomy in agreeing to accept foreign government funding in exchange for academic services; however, I question whether UC Berkeley (or any other U.S. state taxpayer-supported public university) has the autonomy to enter into any such agreement with a foreign government.</p>
<p>If there are federal and/or state constitutional scholars among CC’s members, it would be interesting to hear from you regarding this issue.</p>