The university has come under fire this week for their handling of the protests blocking U.S. Bank, that ultimately led to the bank attempting to get out of their ten-year contract and vacating the spot.
At a town hall meeting, Vice Chancellor John Meyer addressed campus staff and described the campus’s patient, measured responses to the brief occupation of the former Cross Cultural Center and the almost daily blockade of the U.S. Bank branch in the Memorial Union.
“We think we’ve engaged an approach this quarter that is measurably positive,” Vice Chancellor Meyer said.
According to the university, “The campus’s new Engagement Team – several campus employees from different departments who have negotiating and mediating skills – has had regular contact with the protesters, talking with them, listening to their points about ‘real issues’ such as budget cuts and rising tuition; and trying to develop relationships.”
In addition, in the case of the bank protest, the campus says it handed out notices to protesters explaining their rights and responsibilities – advising that blocking people from entering or exiting the bank “is an illegal act,” Vice Chancellor Meyer said.
Eventually, the campus has forwarded six cases to the Yolo County District Attorney’s office, for possible prosecution as misdemeanors.
However, all university spin aside, the efforts by the university were not enough for the bank to stay.
The university remains hopeful that they can mediate it in further talks with the bank.
“We’re disappointed that U.S. Bank has indicated that it wants to leave after UC Davis worked with students to find creative financial solutions during these difficult budget times,” said Associate Vice Chancellor Emily Galindo of Student Affairs.
In the March 1 letter to the Regents, US Bank Senior Vice President Daniel Hoke wrote, “U.S. Bank advised the Regents of their default resulting from the faculty and student protest at the Branch.”
Most provocatively, he called the employees virtual prisoners, writing, “The employees of U.S. Bank who, at times, arrived prior to the protesters, were effectively imprisoned in the Branch.”
Protesters vehemently deny the claim, arguing that the employees were allowed access both in and out of the building.
Mr. Hoke continued, “For well over a month now, U.S. Bank has been deprived of the use of the Branch because of the human barricade formed by the students and faculty in front of the door to the Branch. Notwithstanding the repeated demands of U.S. Bank, the Regents have not provided access to the Branch.”
“The Regents have refused to remove or arrest the persons participating in the illegal gathering even though the Regents have used available laws to disperse protestors who have congregated elsewhere on the University’s campuses,” he continued adding, “Instead of trying to disperse the illegal gathering, the Regents allowed the blockade to continue. It has become clear that the Regents will not disperse the protestors and are content to allow the blockade of the Branch to continue. U.S. Bank, however, cannot permit the risk of physical injury to continue, and it cannot continue to suffer economic loss.”
Mr. Hoke writes, “In light of the above, there is no doubt that U.S. Bank has been constructively evicted from the Branch due to the repeated and unabated breach of the covenant of quiet possession. The Regents have been given notice of their default and have failed to cure it.”
The university, however, fired back in a letter from Greg Haworth, who noted that there are eight years remaining on the lease and, “The Bank’s position and its conduct over the past several weeks are contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Financial Services Partnership Agreement and the Lease.”
As we noted in our commentary last week, the University responded to November 18 protests with an over-the-top response to a largely non-disruptive activity of occupying the Quad. By using pepper spray, which violated the sensibilities of most people in this community, the university has hamstrung its further efforts to deal with protests.
The university ought to be able to effect an arrest of peaceful protesters without an escalated use of force. If they cannot do so, perhaps it really is time to disband the UC Davis police force and allow the City of Davis’ police force to expand their jurisdiction.
Some have reacted to the bank protest, taking the side of US Bank and calling them “victims” in this battle.
We believe that the bank overreacted to the situation in the Memorial Union. We note that two recent Occupy events have shown that this is a relatively small group of activists that are largely disorganized.
Last Friday, the blockade of Monsanto on Russell Blvd in Davis was successful because Monsanto decided to opt for non-confrontation – a good idea. The weather was non-cooperative, with heavy rains, and the protest turnout was light, shrinking as the day went on.
In better weather, a tweet went out on Tuesday calling for the Occupy Movement to march from Central Park to City Hall. That march never materialized and a small handful of Occupiers would eventually come to the public comment at the City Council meeting to complain about being ejected from Central Park on the previous Friday night.
We certainly fault the underreaction by UC Davis in the handling of the bank protests. It is worth noting that they continue to defend that failed policy plan.
“We engaged in a day-after-day-after-day effort to try to engage with the individuals,” university spokesperson Barry Schiller said. “Our goal was not to send out police and create daily flashpoints that would not solve anything.”
However, at the end of the day, we believe that the US Bank used this as a point of convenience to leave. The contract with the university probably did not work out like they wanted it.
The logo on the card drew the ire of many students who were concerned with the commercialization of the campus. Less than ten percent of students utilized the service, far less than they had hoped for.
So when the protesters came and the university was less than decisive with their reaction, US Bank, rather than holding firm and believing that this would be temporary, simply packed their bags and left.
As UC wrote in their response letter: “The Bank has not conducted itself in the spirit of the Financial Services Partnership Agreement. The Regents asked repeatedly for the Bank’s assistance and collaboration in addressing the problems created by the protesters, and the Bank has either outright refused to provide such assistance or has delayed responding in a manner that has caused reasonable suspicion that the Bank was not genuinely interested in maintaining a long-term presence at the Davis campus.”
We believe that the university is exactly right here, and the bank was not genuinely interested, for a number of reasons, in maintaining a long-term presence.
Teri Charest, spokesperson for U.S. Bank, said earlier this week that the bank closed the branch on the UC Davis campus because the protesters made it impossible to do business.
“Our concern was our inability to conduct business and the safety of our branch employees, and the ability of customers to come and go from the branch,” Ms. Charest said.
She would add, “U.S. Bank is still committed to providing the service to the community and the area” and that it was too soon to speculate as to whether the bank might reopen on the campus.
Mr. Schiller added, “We have offered to the bank to mediate this dispute. I don’t know whether the bank will be amenable to that.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“As we noted in our commentary last week, the University responded to November 18 protests with an over-the-top response to a largely non-disruptive activity of occupying the Quad.”
non-disruptive my rear-end.
It’s the university’s fault, it’s the bank’s fault, sorry but it’s the occupiers fault that the bank moved from the campus. That was the occupiers goal as they claimed victory when the bank left.
“The university ought to be able to effect an arrest of peaceful protesters without an escalated use of force. If they cannot do so, perhaps it really is time to disband the UC Davis police force and allow the City of Davis’ police force to expand their jurisdiction.”
Sentence One is completely worthless as a statement of policy or advocacy. If NO escalation of force is acceptable for an arrest, then any resistance or delay is encountered, the arrest is what, abandoned? Have the university put that in writing and issue it as policy to the UC Police and best wishes for that being the solution.
Sentence Two is an fallback position should this strategy fail. Expand the authority of the Davis Police Department to replace UC’s inability to perform.
Please say this option is expressed in a moment of whimsy, jest, or sarcasm. If not, I’ll be the first in a rising chorus of responders who declare this jurisdictional transfer of police power will NEVER EVER happen.
“non-disruptive my rear-end.”
What university function did it disrupt?
The second was offered to be facetious but also to suggest that as a whole the city of Davis police handle these matters far better than UCD.
“It’s the university’s fault, it’s the bank’s fault, sorry but it’s the occupiers fault that the bank moved from the campus. That was the occupiers goal as they claimed victory when the bank left. “
The Occupiers should not have been able to succeed, and yet they did. To me that is the fault of the failure of policies from the university and the bank.
“We believe that the university is exactly right here, and the bank was not genuinely interested, for a number of reasons, in maintaining a long-term presence.”
And what might that belief be based upon? The bank has stated why they they’re leaving. I would give their statement more weight than some anonymous protesters’ “vehement denials” to no apparent person. Furthermore, no one denies they blocked customers–as documented on local tv stations.
There is no doubt the protests led to the bank leaving. To absolve those who blocked the bank by redirecting blame to the university for not confronting protesters more vigorously and risking the inevitable criticism that would come with moving them out and arresting them in the wake of the pepper spray incident seems an odd stand to take.
Just Saying: Why would you give up a $3 million contract for a temporary inconvenience. I really think they were looking for an excuse because they unpopular and it turned out to be not as lucrative as they initially thought.
“The Occupiers should not have been able to succeed, and yet they did. To me that is the fault of the failure of policies from the university and the bank.”
I’m curious what you see as the occupiers’ objective, the one in which they succeeded which you think should not have been allowed to succeed? You assign fault to the university and the bank for something, but it’s not clear what–the bank leaving. What university policies failed? What bank policies failed?
“I really think they were looking for an excuse because they unpopular and it turned out to be not as lucrative as they initially thought.”
Are you just imagining this? With whom were they so unpopular? Who said they weren’t making as much profit as they thought they would? Where did these allegations come from?
You call the occupation just a “temporary inconvenience.” Maybe you’d feel different if it were your business and your customers and your employees under siege for a month with no end in sight?
[quote]However, at the end of the day, we believe that the US Bank used this as a point of convenience to leave. The contract with the university probably did not work out like they wanted it.[/quote]
This is sheer speculation w/o a shred of proof to back it up.
To rusty 49, Phil Coleman, JustSaying: Good points!
Let’s fact facts. The Occupiers got what they wanted, but the old adage “be careful what you wish for” comes to mind. Now the Occupiers have harmed STUDENTS, and shot themselves and their movement in the foot. To blame the University and U.S. Banks is to blame the victims and not the bully – the Occupiers. My hope is that the University and U.S. Bank can have some productive talks, work out an agreement of some sort, and bring U.S. Bank back on campus.
What university function did it disrupt?
they put tents on the lawn, causing property damage. Then the protestors spilled their protests inside Mrak Hall, disrupting business there and causing more damage.
I wouldn’t call that “non-disruptive.”
adding to elaine and rusty’s point: the occupiers have become the quintessential wild animal. When an owner trains a wild animal, and lets it off the leash, that animal will be difficult to control, and scare the owner. Thats what we have here – the occupiers have become a wild animal that has gotten out of control and cannot be contained. Now they are running roughshod over everyone and everything – it doesn’t matter who. Now the dems want to reign in the animal and get control back, but they arent’ succeeding.
@91 Octane, in re: wild animal point…
In the eyes of the law ‘wild animals’ will always be wild, despite attempts to domesticate.
Ergo, they are subject to a sort of strict liabilty analysis (ERM correct me if my memory doesn’t serve me).
BTW, great posts!
1 lay person’s perspective: [quote]the University responded to November 18 protests with an over-the-top response to a largely non-disruptive activity of occupying the Quad. By using pepper spray, which violated the sensibilities of most people in this community, the university has hamstrung its further efforts to deal with protests.[/quote]
JustSaying: I don’t know what the bank actually tried to do. But I think leaving doesn’t make sense unless you believe this is a permanent and unsolvable problem or you don’t really want to be there.
As for the University, clearly they needed to allow people to have unfettered access to the bank. If the protesters wouldn’t let them, you are then justified in making an arrest.
“Are you just imagining this? With whom were they so unpopular? Who said they weren’t making as much profit as they thought they would? Where did these allegations come from?”
It’s mostly a math question and you can see in the figures in the first article I did they have far less in terms of bank accounts and have produced far less money than originally anticipated.
“This is sheer speculation w/o a shred of proof to back it up.”
The evidence is that it took relatively little for them to leave. That leads me to question their commitment to stay.
“they put tents on the lawn, causing property damage. Then the protestors spilled their protests inside Mrak Hall, disrupting business there and causing more damage.”
Your first statement is false. Your second statement is curious because (A) there is no evidence that the same people in the tents went inside Mrak, (B) there no reason they wouldn’t have protested in Mrak anyway, and (C) moves beyond the scope of my initial point in order to strain to prove yours even tangentially
“1 lay person’s perspective: [quote]the University responded to November 18 protests with an over-the-top response to a largely non-disruptive activity of occupying the Quad. By using pepper spray, which violated the sensibilities of most people in this community, the university has hamstrung its further efforts to deal with protests.[/quote]“
I take it you disagree, but I have no idea why.
What did OWS accomplish”
1. Now more UCD students will go to the B of A branch downtown. BofA/Countrywide was one of the worst offenders during the subprime mortgage era.
2. UCD will have less money and students will be inconvenienced.
Thanks OWS.
Yet another perspective. I see plenty of responsibility belonging to all involved and no one willing to step up and accept full responsibility for their own actions.
1) The society as a whole – our role is our failure to full fill the promise this society made to provide an affordable education to every student who met the academic criteria by putting our money where our educational mouth was thus creating an environment for protest, as broken promises frequently will
2) The protesters – some actions were disruptive, some not. No one should be penalized in any way for peaceful, legal protest. For those who choose to break the law, they should be willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions.
3) The police/ administration – they have the responsibility to provide safety/ enforce the laws and secure peace and order. In the fall out of their use of excessive force in the pepper spray incident, they are now not choosing to fulfill their responsibilities with regard to law enforcement. This is where I believe that the bully/ victim analogy falls apart. It is the charge and the responsibility of the police to enforce the law. This is their job. While it is entirely reasonable for a weaker child to avoid a bully, it is not reasonable for the school administration to also avoid dealing with the bully.
This is the more apt analogy in this situation in my opinion. The police are not the victim, they are however, choosing to avoid the situation, possibly under direction from higher up the chain of command.
4) The bank – I doubt we will ever know the true role of the bank in this situation.
One could simply accept their word at face value about why they are leaving. Or one could look at the broader picture and see whether there might be alternative motives in which this incident could be seen as a convenient way out of a contract that was not proving as lucrative as they would have hoped when initially entered into. Unfortunately, we will never know since this would require the bank be perfectly forthcoming with their pre contract projections for the profitability of this branch as compared to the actual profitability. Since the bank has no obligation to provide such information, we simply will not know and any commentary either for or against the motives of the bank is pure speculation based on nothing more than the pre existing bias of the particular poster, myself included.
Having said that, I will share one comparison and observation about the behavior of the bank. There is another group who has ,over a period of many years chosen to continue to operate in the face of severe adversity, blockages of their buildings, physical and psychological threats to their employees and clientele . These are the providers of a wide variety of women’s health care services including abortion.
I do not see, in the actions of US Bank, even an iota of dedication to providing for the needs of their customers who choose to use this branch. These users are the only true victims of the entire mess.
It was the students’ fault. They participate in and support the occupy junk. Now they get to walk a lot farther to get their $20 ATM withdrawals.
The problem with class warfare is the same problem with socialism: the inability of the moochers and looters to figure out how to enslave the producers. Students by their circumstances are justified moochers; they require handouts from parents and government until they launch into self-sufficiency. The irony with their occupy movement is that they are advocating tearing down, or at least diminishing, the structures they would launch to. They are in fact being manipulated by the looters to become permanent members of the moocher class, reliable in their voting tendency to help ensure the looters retain their power.
Looking at the bigger picture, the students should be targeting bloated public-sector unions gorging on fat pay and pensions and government for over-spending on things not supporting development of opportunity to launch to and succeed in self-sufficiency and prosperity. However, their professors are not teaching this view, are they?
[i]”These are the providers of a wide variety of women’s health care services including abortion.”[/i]
These are generally publically-funded businesses that lack free will to make a decision to close or re-located. Which gets back to my point about the inability and frustration of socialists for figuring out a way to enslave producers. If government owned, the business itself could be enslaved, but not the people within. Even in communist systems the people within doing the producing will demonstrate free will when attempted to be enslaved. They will produce far less than otherwise capable.
So, taking the US Bank situation, if the government had a way to force the branch to stay open and endure the stupidity of the occupy crowd, the service provided would fall to the lowest-levels required by law.
What other approach might the students used to effect change they desire?
moochers … looters … moochers … looters, just can’t help yourself, Jeff?
You know nothing about the individual circumstances of any of the occupy protesters, I would guess, so you are making assumptions about them. Not every college student is subsidized by parent or government.
[i]”Not every college student is subsidized by parent or government.”[/i]
Two points…
One – They are the minority.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/aid.jpg[/img]
Two – Few of them would be occupy protesters since they would be working and paying taxes on their wages.
We have been through the Rand definition of these terms before…
“Looters” confiscate others’ earnings.
“Moochers” demand others’ earnings on behalf of the needy and those unable to earn themselves.
“Producers” are all the “others”
[i]We have been through the Rand definition of these terms before…
[/i]
Yeah. Please stop using them. We’ve been through that before, too. Calling someone a moocher or looter is derogatory.
“Your first statement is false. Your second statement is curious because (A) there is no evidence that the same people in the tents went inside Mrak, (B) there no reason they wouldn’t have protested in Mrak anyway, and (C) moves beyond the scope of my initial point in order to strain to prove yours even tangentially”
they are all part and parcel of the same protest. And the people who got sprayed were trying to prevent the police from arresting others (obstruction) – that is how they were disruptive.
The pamphlet ([url]http://occupyucdavis.org/documents/us-bank-blockade-pamphlet/[/url]) from Occupy UC Davis had 5 sections. In Section 4 “FAQ”, the 3rd question read: “Won’t the university have to pay a termination fee if U.S. Bank leaves?” The official reply by Occupy was that the Bank was responsible for its own protection–it was not the university’s responsibility to arrest or evict the Occupiers. According to the chronology, the bank did try to get its own security guard, but something happened and the bank did not follow through with that course of action. However, this detail brings five questions:
1) This first question is about whether the branch is making any money. As a rough estimate, that branch has to pay yearly rent of $96K, and pay at least $130K to support student services. Those are expenses in addition to personnel costs to staff the branch. According to some report, that branch has about 2000 customers. Suppose by ‘customer’, we meant only those who opened an account. To open an account, a student might deposit $2000, then the bank takes that money to make money. According to the math so far, if the branch can profit $113 from each student yearly, then the branch would break even. Depending on what the facts are, you could calculate whether the branch is making money. Does someone know the figures, or know whether the branch is profitable?
2) If the branch is profitable, then the situation fits Occupy UC Davis argument that US Bank branch is there to make a profit. But then the question becomes: Did the branch make a profit in an unfair manner? For this, the main citation from Occupy would probably be the advertisement on the Student ID card, among other charges against US Bank as a whole. Then the question would be this: given that the branch is profitable for US Bank, is it also profitable for another Occupy-approved Financial institute (such as a Credit Union)? If so, did they ever tried to get a branch there? Did UC Davis reject them and picked US Bank instead?
3) If the branch is not profitable, then the situation fits Greenwald’s argument that the branch was looking for an excuse to get out of the contract. In this case, it looks like UC Davis got itself a great deal, because somehow, UC Davis had just [i]tricked[/i] a financial institute into donating at least $130K for student services. If this was what happened, then UC Davis admin beat the financial institute at their own game, however, that victory was potentially undone by Occupy.
4) The last question is about the FAQ. The person who asked “Won’t the university have to pay a termination fee if U.S. Bank leaves?” was concern about the liability issues against UC Davis. In response, Occupy said that the branch was responsible for its own security. Occupy’s response was a way to assure the Asker that UC Davis will not take the fall for it. As the events turn out, US Bank is trying to terminate the contract and to sue UC Davis for damages. For this question, I want to know the stance of Occupy on this issue. Will Occupy stand behind UC Davis to fight against US Bank’s litigation?
5) The last question is about the Occupy tactic. If a student can’t get subsidized government student loan, does Occupy know where they should get a good student loan? According to the argument so far, getting it from US Bank would be a NO (and worse if they got it from Bank of America). It looks like instead of blockading US Bank, a more direct method is to spread the info on where those students should get their loans instead. If that happens, they Occupy would have denied US Bank from making the profit they expected, while keeping them pay the $130K to support student services annually as required by the contract, and protected the interest of the students by telling them where they should get their loans. What explanation does Occupy has for not taking this tactic? Note that not knowing which institute would provide at least a better student loan (or scholarship, or other funding method) is not an acceptable answer because if Occupy did not know at least one better alternative, they could not justify that US Bank was their next best hope for those students to afford their education given their circumstance. Since Occupy had already shut down US Bank branch, this information, which was missing on the pamphlet ([url]http://occupyucdavis.org/documents/us-bank-blockade-pamphlet/[/url]), is now [b]overdue.[/b]
To some extent U S Bank wanted praise for establishing a people staffed bank on campus. It also wanted to display its name prominately on campus, like ARCO did on the arena. The students and the university should have publicly and loudly defended the bank for its contribution and its service–much more valuable than maintaining an ATM. Failing to do this deprived U S Bank of intangible benefits.
[quote]DMG: I don’t know what the bank actually tried to do. But I think leaving doesn’t make sense unless you believe this is a permanent and unsolvable problem or you don’t really want to be there.
As for the University, clearly they needed to allow people to have unfettered access to the bank. If the protesters wouldn’t let them, you are then justified in making an arrest.[/quote]
It amazes me the extent to which you have to use tortured logic to excuse the protestors (bullies) while condemning the bank and the university (the victims).
[quote]3) The police/ administration – they have the responsibility to provide safety/ enforce the laws and secure peace and order. In the fall out of their use of excessive force in the pepper spray incident, they are now not choosing to fulfill their responsibilities with regard to law enforcement. This is where I believe that the bully/ victim analogy falls apart. It is the charge and the responsibility of the police to enforce the law. This is their job. While it is entirely reasonable for a weaker child to avoid a bully, it is not reasonable for the school administration to also avoid dealing with the bully.
This is the more apt analogy in this situation in my opinion. The police are not the victim, they are however, choosing to avoid the situation, possibly under direction from higher up the chain of command. [/quote]
You bet the university police are avoiding the situation – it appears at least six of them are headed for discipline (and may lose their jobs) for the pepper spraying incident. Katehi still doesn’t know whether she is going to hold onto her job. Can you blame the university/university police for being overly cautious? Perhaps you can, but then you are not walking in their shoes…
[quote]Since the bank has no obligation to provide such information, we simply will not know and any commentary either for or against the motives of the bank is pure speculation based on nothing more than the pre existing bias of the particular poster, myself included. [/quote]
Bingo!
[quote]Students by their circumstances are justified moochers; they require handouts from parents and government until they launch into self-sufficiency. The irony with their occupy movement is that they are advocating tearing down, or at least diminishing, the structures they would launch to. They are in fact being manipulated by the looters to become permanent members of the moocher class, reliable in their voting tendency to help ensure the looters retain their power. [/quote]
I think this is a very unfair and overly generalized view of college students. My three children worked their way through the university as well as received student aid. My youngest worked two jobs while going to school. None of my children would have appreciated what the Occupiers did/are doing. But what can regular students do, other than to stay away from the protest and continue with their education? The regular students are victims here, not the perpetrators. By blaming non-protesting students, you are blaming the victim, instead of putting blame where blame belongs – on the PROTESTORS…
“instead of putting blame where blame belongs – on the PROTESTORS…
And I would add the police and administrators. I cannot hold the protesters responsible for the choices made by the police.
Elaine:[i]”I think this is a very unfair and overly generalized view of college students.”[/i]
Fair enough. I agree. My kids too.
I was generalizing because there is little coming from the universities and students in opposition to the occupy movement, and there is quite a lot in support of it. Almost all of the chatter coming from the education domain appears to be the “blame the rich and the banks” stuff.
As the graph I posted shows, more students are on financial aid than are not. Out of those that are not, a large percentage have their education paid for by their parents. I do agree that kids working to pay for their own education are more likely to NOT support the methods and message of the occupy movement; but again, I think those kids are the, mostly silent, minority.
“The closure of the branch and cancellation of the contract were due to a blockade of the branch office carried out by student and faculty protesters from January through March. It is important to understand the political content of this blockade: the demonstrators continually stated their opposition to the substitution of private contracts for public funding of the UC system, and they continually pointed out conflicts of interest related to University contracts with corporations profiting from student loan interest as the UC administration continues to increase tuition, thus forcing many students to take out increased loans.”
Edward Wai, what a fascinating track you’ve put us on with this pamphlet link. David, I hope you’ll follow up on these documents and the massive attacks of which this bank branch blockade is just a tiny part. I think you’d come up with a much different attitude than the speculation to which you’ve confessed about why US Bank left UCD.
Clearing out the lobby and arresting the demonstrators obviously would not have stopped the organized anarchy underway here. Until this group gets what it says are its aims (the departure of the chancellor and free education at UC campuses are two), the US Bank office didn’t have a chance.
The very sophisticated communications about all the Occupy targets make it clear that these demonstrations aren’t just a bunch of irritable students shooting of steam. The manifesto published against US Bank obviously will fuel such blockades for years to come.
“It amazes me the extent to which you have to use tortured logic to excuse the protestors (bullies) while condemning the bank and the university (the victims).”
You seem to not get it. The protesters are not that powerful that they should have been able to achieve this without errors and acquiescence from those who had the power to make decisions. Therefore, it has nothing to do with excusing behavior of one group, but rather the focus on the mistakes of the other groups. It would be one thing if they were throwing rocks or Molotov cocktails, but for the most part they were sitting on their hind-parts and there weren’t *that* many of them, so the police, the university and the bank should have been able to deal with them, however you wish to ascribe their behavior and they didn’t.
“You bet the university police are avoiding the situation – it appears at least six of them are headed for discipline (and may lose their jobs) for the pepper spraying incident. Katehi still doesn’t know whether she is going to hold onto her job. Can you blame the university/university police for being overly cautious? Perhaps you can, but then you are not walking in their shoes…”
If that fact means that they cannot do their job effectively then yes, I have to blame them. The real question is why are you doing gymnastics to avoid doing so yourself.
[quote]I do agree that kids working to pay for their own education are more likely to NOT support the methods and message of the occupy movement; but again, I think those kids are the, mostly silent, minority.[/quote]
I suspect they are in the silent MAJORITY…
[quote]If that fact means that they cannot do their job effectively then yes, I have to blame them. The real question is why are you doing gymnastics to avoid doing so yourself.[/quote]
I would refer you to JustSaying’s comments, to wit:
[quote]Edward Wai, what a fascinating track you’ve put us on with this pamphlet link. David, I hope you’ll follow up on these documents and the massive attacks of which this bank branch blockade is just a tiny part. I think you’d come up with a much different attitude than the speculation to which you’ve confessed about why US Bank left UCD.
Clearing out the lobby and arresting the demonstrators obviously would not have stopped the organized anarchy underway here. Until this group gets what it says are its aims (the departure of the chancellor and free education at UC campuses are two), the US Bank office didn’t have a chance.
The very sophisticated communications about all the Occupy targets make it clear that these demonstrations aren’t just a bunch of irritable students shooting of steam. The manifesto published against US Bank obviously will fuel such blockades for years to come.[/quote]
“I do agree that kids working to pay for their own education are more likely to NOT support the methods and message of the occupy movement”
I don’t know the basis for that statement. I have talked to people in the occupy movement, I also talk to students who intern for our court watch program – almost all of them support the occupy movement and almost all of them have to work to support themselves through college and are getting buried with student loan debts.
“You seem to not get it. The protesters are not that powerful that they should have been able to achieve this without errors and acquiescence from those who had the power to make decisions. Therefore, it has nothing to do with excusing behavior of one group, but rather the focus on the mistakes of the other groups.”
Well, I sure don’t get it. By focusing on the mistakes of the university and the bank, you ARE excusing and minimizing the role of those blockading the bank. Claiming the demonstrators have little power ignores the effectiveness of this type of protest activity and of their avowed aims and persistence.
Had they been “throwing rocks or Molotov cocktails” they WOULD have been arrested and moved out. I’m a little surprised that you’ve taken such a strong stance against the university’s decision to exercise patience in the face of a non-violent demonstration.
And, what an odd contention that “the police, the university and the bank should have been able to deal with them”–what do you suggest that the bank should have done during that three-month blockade to help “deal with them”?
Who got what they wanted here? Who started and “won” the battle? Who is committed to continuing such actions until their demands are met?
Whose anonymous, unsupported word (“vehemently deny the claim”) that protesters didn’t block employees (only customers?) gets accepted unquestionably in the Vanguard? And why would you continue “focusing” of the other parties if not to limit the responsibility of those who were successful at getting what they announced they were after? I still don’t get it.
Just Saying:
Let’s break this down a bit more.
I put more onus on people who are in power to exercise prudence. My expectations are higher for adults who are police officers or highly paid university administrators than college students who are only beginning to learn about the political process and how to properly wield power.
That’s why I focus on the mistakes of the university and the bank, the same reason is why I focus on the mistakes of prosecutors over the mistakes of criminals, the same reason I focus on the mistakes of government officials over mistakes of citizens.
“Claiming the demonstrators have little power ignores the effectiveness of this type of protest activity and of their avowed aims and persistence. “
And what I’m arguing is that their activity shouldn’t have been as effective as it is.
“I’m a little surprised that you’ve taken such a strong stance against the university’s decision to exercise patience in the face of a non-violent demonstration. “
I think they erred by being too patient here just as they erred by being not patient enough back in november. And there is a clear causal relationship there.
“what do you suggest that the bank should have done during that three-month blockade to help “deal with them”? “
My biggest criticism of the bank was leaving as quickly as they did. It is the university I blame more for poor response.
“Who got what they wanted here? Who started and “won” the battle? Who is committed to continuing such actions until their demands are met?”
The question is really who allowed them to get what they want because as I will continue to maintain, the only reason that they did was mistakes by those in charge.
“Whose anonymous, unsupported word (“vehemently deny the claim”) that protesters didn’t block employees (only customers?) gets accepted unquestionably in the Vanguard? “
You seem to mistake my printing their response for accepting that. I wasn’t there and cannot judge whether or not their statement was true.
“And why would you continue “focusing” of the other parties if not to limit the responsibility of those who were successful at getting what they announced they were after? I still don’t get it. “
Because as I’ve explained those parties are the ones who enabled this to be a successful operation.
I hope that explains my position on this, even if you do not agree with it.
Me: [i]”I do agree that kids working to pay for their own education are more likely to NOT support the methods and message of the occupy movement; but again, I think those kids are the, mostly silent, minority.”[/i}
Elaine: [i]I suspect they are in the silent MAJORITY…”[/i]
I consider low and deferred interest student loans as government assistance. So, if you are a student relying on student loans, you would more likely have a vested interest in maintaining or increasing government subsidies for the student loan programs. Remember that student loan payments are not required until AFTER the student stops attending school.
I don’t disagree that many students work while they are attending school. I was responding to your disagreement with my point that the majority of students support the occupy movement because they required government assistance.
David:[i]”I put more onus on people who are in power to exercise prudence. My expectations are higher for adults who are police officers or highly paid university administrators than college students who are only beginning to learn about the political process and how to properly wield power.”[/i]
This is an interesting perspective, and I think it helps explain a number of positions you take on various issues. I would suggest you consider that there are problems caused with the soft bigotry of low expectations. Setting a lower bar of expected behavior for certain groups based on some deductive reasoning serves to reduce the education opportunity for the members of that group. If these kids get pampered and protected from the consequence of their behavior then they will tend to learn to expect ongoing pampering and protection. Apparently you think the bank should have just let the kids throw their tantrums and then US Bank rewards them with… what?
Civil disobedience has consequences. Behavior has consequences. Isn’t that a primary lesson of life? The adults that run the bank just schooled the kids on this point.
[b]DG[/b] writes:
[quote]but I have no idea why. [/quote]
For starters…”over the top response…”
In one “story” YOU decry expert testimony, yet liberally proffer your personal opinion cocerning isues when YOU are neither an expert nor have the expertise in said discipline…
Your less than first hand, direct experience, training, education or expertise makes for blog fodder & that’s cool – hence, I return & post.
I’m reminded of a poster on another forum who ranted and raved about the writing quality of a DA manager, claiming to be a better writer, only to never once produce…
There, I said it. Is that front street enough for you David?
Now may I ask: When will you post your new writing standards?
I have no idea what you just said.
DG [quote]The evidence is that it took relatively little for them to leave[/quote]
That is merely YOUR assessment…
mw – [quote]The police/ administration – …In the fall out of their use of excessive force in the pepper spray incident…[/quote]
Sorry Doc, you are being a bit conclusory. No such official determination re: “excessive force” has been established.
You wouldn’t make a diagnosis to one of your patients when you didn’t have all the facts and/or before all of the test results are in, would you?
You’re just parsing words, you know full well that the university’s unresponse here is due to the perception of the earlier over response, no matter what word or term you want to call it.
mw, can you show us a recent picture of pro-life protestors INSIDE of an abortion clninc ala the above picture, please?
[quote]This is an interesting perspective, and I think it helps explain a number of positions you take on various issues. I would suggest you consider that there are problems caused with the soft bigotry of low expectations. Setting a lower bar of expected behavior for certain groups based on some deductive reasoning serves to reduce the education opportunity for the members of that group. If these kids get pampered and protected from the consequence of their behavior then they will tend to learn to expect ongoing pampering and protection. Apparently you think the bank should have just let the kids throw their tantrums and then US Bank rewards them with… what?
Civil disobedience has consequences. Behavior has consequences. Isn’t that a primary lesson of life? The adults that run the bank just schooled the kids on this point[/quote]
Nice, JB!
To DMG:
You maintain that US Bank left too soon. Could you explain when they should leave instead, or in what condition would it be justifiable for them to leave (given that the protesters remain non-violent)? And who should pick up the bill for their loss during the blockade?
You also maintain that there weren’t that many protesters. Could you disclose that number that is ‘too few’, and explain how many would it take to be ‘enough’? Could you also clarify how many entrances there are to the US Bank branch at the MU, then divide the number of protesters you believe is ‘enough’ by the number of entrances to see how many protesters you believe are required to block an entrance before you would say that there were ‘enough’ protesters? This is an important question because this would help the Admin understand your expectation in order to draft policies that you will agree.
On the pamphlet ([url]http://occupyucdavis.org/documents/us-bank-blockade-pamphlet/[/url]), Section 4 Question 4 reads: “In his March 1 letter to the Regents US Bank Senior Vice President Daniel Hoke wrote ‘The employees of U.S. Bank who, at times, arrived prior to the protesters were effectively imprisoned in the Branch.’ What’s up with that?” Occupy replied: “This is false. The blockaders had a policy of not impeding anyone trying to exit the branch. Bank workers were free to leave at any time and typically did leave.” It might be an unintentional use of word, but Occupy did not state that the employees were free to [b]enter[/b] or [b]re-enter[/b] the branch if they did leave. Could you clarify if the employees were free to enter?
Edgar:
They had a ten year contract expected to pay out around $3 million at minimum. It seems a few months into a protest was a little early to leave.
“This is an important question because this would help the Admin understand your expectation in order to draft policies that you will agree.”
If they are relying on my advice, they are in worse shape than I thought.
“Could you clarify if the employees were free to enter? “
I don’t know the answer to that. I got the quote I did, that’s all.
[i]Civil disobedience has consequences. Behavior has consequences.[/i]
Yes, I always thought getting arrested was part of the point of civil disobedience.
[quote]JS: “Whose anonymous, unsupported word (“vehemently deny the claim”) that protesters didn’t block employees (only customers?) gets accepted unquestionably in the Vanguard? ”
David: “You seem to mistake my printing their response for accepting that. I wasn’t there and cannot judge whether or not their statement was true.”
Edgar: “Could you clarify if the employees were free to enter? ”
David: “I don’t know the answer to that. I got the quote I did, that’s all.”[/quote]David, I’m disappointed that–after all the time you’ve been doing this–you still print anonymous quotes with your characterizations that imply your belief that you’re being accurate and, then, use them to support your conclusions. And, then, kiss them off when people call you on the statements.
Your readers have no way to judge whether you hear these things from reliable sources or just make them up for convince. As you conduct your announced look at your standards, please note that this is one of the [i]Vanguard[/i]’s most significant, repetitive journalistic failings.
[quote]You’re just parsing words, you know full well that the university’s unresponse here is due to the perception of the earlier over response, no matter what word or term you want to call it.”[/quote]I’m not positive whose comment is getting this response, David, but two things:
1. You’ve provided absolutely, positively not one scintilla of evidence that [u]anyone[/u] knows “full well” what drove what you call “the university’s unresponse here.” You keep offering your own unsupported speculation, but nothing that could encourage anyone to convert to your positions.
2. Words matter. When you write stuff, you should expect some disagreement and say what you really mean. If you’re careful, your work will survive parsing. In any case, suggesting that readers are “just parsing words” when they disagree with your writing isn’t really a great way to deal with their concerns about what you write.
I think part of the difficulty is dealing with this story is readers’ built-in suspicion that–had UCD police arrested and cuffed these folks, dragged them away and prosecuted them for their crimes–you would not have agreed that the university had exercised enough patience.
Pardon my skepticism. But, there’s nothing to do now other than to accept your out-of-character opinion that, incidentally, does not give any credit to the protesters for the power they hold or for the actions they took.
“I think part of the difficulty is dealing with this story is readers’ built-in suspicion that–had UCD police arrested and cuffed these folks, dragged them away and prosecuted them for their crimes–you would not have agreed that the university had exercised enough patience.”
I was questioned about this last week and cited links that disproved that theory.
[quote]My expectations are higher for adults who are police officers or highly paid university administrators than college students who are only beginning to learn about the political process and how to properly wield power. [/quote]
This makes the false assumption that the primary planners of these protests were students. In fact, they were led and instigated by an English Professor [url]http://english.ucdavis.edu/people/directory/jclover[/url] who was constantly sitting with and speaking for the bank blockers. Now you could make the point that he is not really an adult either, but I would disagree – one has to draw the line somewhere.
[quote]“I was questioned about this last week and cited links that disproved that theory.”[/quote] I didn’t say that you [u]really[/u] would have given UCD officials a hard time if they yanked these demonstrators, just that some readers might [u]think[/u] that. You know how folks are sometimes.
[quote]“Joshua Clover
Professor of English
Education & Interests: MFA (University of Iowa). Interests include poetry and poetics, film studies, Marxist/post-Marxist theory and political economy.”[/quote]Are you sure he was involved, J.R.? He’s paid as a poet, but also claims interest in Marxism..
Wouldn’t he be too busy teaching classes to sit around blockading a bank, whining about students not getting adequate, free education? Of course, that would explain the high quality of the website, the statements, etc. What’s your basis for claiming he was involved?
Me: [i]Civil disobedience has consequences. Behavior has consequences.”[/i]
Don: [i]Yes, I always thought getting arrested was part of the point of civil disobedience.[/i]
I really did not know that. So, the kids are protesting hoping to be arrested? Is that their primary goal? I thought their primary goal was to draw media attention.
Drawing attention is the goal, getting arrested draws attention and makes the larger point about laws and rules that enforce whatever status quo is being protested. So when George Clooney joins a protest outside the Sudanese embassy about the plight of the residents of the Nuba mountains (a very worthy cause, IMO), his arrest called attention to the issue. And so he went willingly, smiling for the reporters.
If you think something is a serious enough issue that you’ll break the law to bring it to the public’s attention, you should be willing to go to jail over it.
[quote]Are you sure he was involved, J.R.?[/quote]
Yes. I saw him there acting as a spokesman for the group.
For some evidence, see
[url]http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/occupy-uc-davis-students-aim/content?oid=4980009[/url]
and
[url]http://www.theaggie.org/2012/01/11/teach-in-held-at-on-campus-bank/[/url]
and
[url]http://www.theaggie.org/2012/02/21/120221_ca_usbank/[/url]
To David (DMG):
I said, “This is an important question because this would help the Admin understand your expectation in order to draft policies that you will agree.”
You said, “If they are relying on my advice, they are in worse shape than I thought.”
Telling the Admin what you expect is not the same as giving the Admin advice. One of my biggest concerns is that the Pepper Spray Report is correct but not understood by Occupy and those who do not share the same expectations and languages as the Admin. When that happens, there could be another wave of damage to the community. Such a threat can be neutralized by resolving differences in language and expectations beforehand through discussion.
You maintained that US Bank left too early. Given that the blockade does not escalate into something else and remains non-violent, how long or under what condition would be ‘long enough’ for you to conclude that US Bank had made a good faith effort to stay? If you believe that US Bank should not leave if the blockade remain non-violent, could you explain who should cover their losses?
My stance is that the blockade is dishonorable because it is exploiting the good will of the legal/law enforcement system for a political expression. The law enforcement system is not and should not be designed to handle political conflicts. Instead of having a blockade, the protesters could have hosted public forums to discuss what to do with the branch. That would have been a legal, inclusive, and constructive approach I expect from a university environment. They should be inviting the community for a discussion because they should have every reason to believe that they can address the concerns of the community and unite it for a just cause. Failure to do so is a sign of dishonesty and illegitimacy.
In the case of Nathan Brown (Assistant Professor in English), shown here ([url]http://www.theaggie.org/wp-content/themes/wp-newspaper/timthumb.php?src=http://www.theaggie.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/occupy-1024×682.jpg&q=90&w=629&zc=1[/url]) on the right, there is already evidence of dishonesty because in his Nov19 letter ([url]http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/[/url]) calling for Chancellor’s resignation, he claimed that “When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats.” There is no evidence that this ever happened and it appears that Brown never cared to make correction or clarification. Making false accusation might be careless. But keeping false accusation uncorrected is unethical. Professors should first and foremost serve as ethical models for the students.
If you believe that different types of adults have different levels of responsibility, then what sort of responsibility should Brown have?
* * *
You said, “They had a ten year contract expected to pay out around $3 million at minimum. It seems a few months into a protest was a little early to leave.” What you said sounded like US Bank was expecting to earn $3 Million over ten years. But according to NewsReview ([url]http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/occupy-uc-davis-students-aim/content?oid=4980009[/url]), it is UC Davis that is expecting to earn $3 Million over ten years from US Bank. Could you clarify your meaning?
“I really did not know that. So, the kids are protesting hoping to be arrested? Is that their primary goal? I thought their primary goal was to draw media attention.”
And best way to do that is to show that the authorities are unreasonable through arrest or getting beat up..
“what do you suggest that the bank should have done during that three-month blockade to help “deal with them”?
Persevere. To continue my analogy, this is exactly what clinics providing abortion services, as well as many other health care services have had to do.
AdRemmer
“You wouldn’t make a diagnosis to one of your patients when you didn’t have all the facts and/or before all of the test results are in, would you?”
On the contrary, in medicine, especially in my field we frequently have to act before ” all the facts or test results are in”. Sometimes, the situation just speaks for itself. If a woman comes into the hospital hemmorrhaging, I will certainly act immediately to save her life rather than waiting the 20 minutes it may take to get back a blood test.
For me ( possibly not for you) the hours of taping ( much of it obviously unedited and uncut) spoke for itself.
Back to the clinic/bank analogy for a moment, I cannot show you current photos of protesters inside clinics. I am also fairly sure that you cannot provide me with names of bank executives or tellers shot and killed by protesters such as I can provide for doctors and clinic workers. The analogy is comparative, not exact.
[i]The analogy is comparative, not exact. [/i]
There are at least two important differences between the examples:
1. In the case of the medical clinics, local police are generally involved to make sure that the activities of the protestor remain legal, and allow the clinic to remain open, and the clinics are not invaded by the protestors. In this case, UCD Police were allowing the bank to invaded, and periodically they would lock the doors, preventing CUSTOMERS from entering and the bank would close on many days. Therefore, the viability of the bank as a business location was severely impeded because the bank was unable to conduct its businesses – as opposed to the clinics were the business was protected by the police and the community.
2. Any doctor who kept himself and his employees in harms way would like have felt a strong moral obligation to serve his clients, and not let the protestors impede the client’s right to the services. In this case, there is another US Bank branch in town, and services could be rendered in a much safer location.
Edgar Wai: [i]”My stance is that the blockade is dishonorable because it is exploiting the good will of the legal/law enforcement system for a political expression. The law enforcement system is not and should not be designed to handle political conflicts. Instead of having a blockade, the protesters could have hosted public forums to discuss what to do with the branch. That would have been a legal, inclusive, and constructive approach I expect from a university environment.”[/i]
Excellent! I agree.
David: [i]”And best way to do that is to show that the authorities are unreasonable through arrest or getting beat up..”[/i]
Frankly, I think this method of exploiting the very difficult job of law enforcement has always been disgusting. It is indicative of a certainly laziness and lack of organization on the part of the protestors. How difficult is it to create a mob/party to stir up trouble so the cops HAVE to deal with it? Not very. Maybe they need a good community organizer. They can hire Obama after the next election.
[quote]David, I’m disappointed that–after all the time you’ve been doing this–you still print anonymous quotes with your characterizations that imply your belief that you’re being accurate and, then, use them to support your conclusions. And, then, kiss them off when people call you on the statements.
Your readers have no way to judge whether you hear these things from reliable sources or just make them up for convince. As you conduct your announced look at your standards, please note that this is one of the Vanguard’s most significant, repetitive journalistic failings.
[/quote]
Well said!
[quote]David: “And best way to do that is to show that the authorities are unreasonable through arrest or getting beat up..” [/quote]
I strongly disagree. IMO the safest, more effective, most democratic way is as Edgar Wia and Jeff Boone have pointed out:
[quote]Edgar Wai: “My stance is that the blockade is dishonorable because it is exploiting the good will of the legal/law enforcement system for a political expression. The law enforcement system is not and should not be designed to handle political conflicts. Instead of having a blockade, the protesters could have hosted public forums to discuss what to do with the branch. That would have been a legal, inclusive, and constructive approach I expect from a university environment.” [/quote]
[quote]Frankly, I think this method of exploiting the very difficult job of law enforcement has always been disgusting. It is indicative of a certainly laziness and lack of organization on the part of the protestors. How difficult is it to create a mob/party to stir up trouble so the cops HAVE to deal with it? Not very. Maybe they need a good community organizer. [/quote]
But then the democratic way, the safer way, the more effective way that does not trample on other peoples’ rights takes considerably more effort… mob rule is easy…
[quote]Persevere. To continue my analogy, this is exactly what clinics providing abortion services, as well as many other health care services have had to do.[/quote]
Suppose an abortion clinic was blocked by protestors, and the police refused to clear them away and to allow access for weeks, till the abortion clinic finally decides to close down and relocated to another nearby location where the police don’t allow its doors to be blocked.
You would blame the clinic for not persevering? It’s not the fault of the community that didn’t enforce the law or the protestors who broke the law?
Looks like moral confusion to me.
“”You bet the university police are avoiding the situation – it appears at least six of them are headed for discipline (and may lose their jobs) for the pepper spraying incident. Katehi still doesn’t know whether she is going to hold onto her job. Can you blame the university/university police for being overly cautious? Perhaps you can, but then you are not walking in their shoes…”
Anyone who holds a position of authority or responsibility is “walking in their shoes” throughout their career. If one of my colleagues makes a mistake that causes serious injury to a patient, or even their death, what is needed is a thorough review of what happened and how it can be avoided in the future. It doesn’t mean that we stop doing our job. We don’t stop taking care of patients. Even those with similar conditions or situations. Likewise I am sure that if a colleague loses a case through an error, I am fairly sure that you would continue to take on new clients.
So, yes, I do assign responsibility to the police for not doing their job.
With regard to my example of a clinic. Yes, I would blame them if they gave up after only a couple of months of police inaction. Clinic have a moral obligation to the patient’s in the communities they serve. We have a name in medicine for quitting under similar circumstances. It’s called patient abandonment and is not highly regarded in the medical community. I see no moral ambiguity here. The clinicians have an obligation to keep these practices open, and indeed have frequently done so under threats to the lives of themselves and their staffs. The police have an obligation to keep the clinics unblocked and the participants protected. Both groups need to do their job. Where is the ambiguity ?
It is a stretch to expect US Bank should have the same level of commitment to an abortion clinic because there is no ethical code that dictates the branch should stay open to serve the students. As indicated in the language of the Mar12 Letter ([url]http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/us-bank-flees-in-terror-from-direct-action/[/url]), shutting down the MU branch is just a matter of going to the main branch at F street. The presence of US Bank on campus is mainly a result of business negotiation. As of now, there is no sign that the University intends to cover the lost of US Bank, nor to let US Bank employ their own security to deal with the blockaders.
Ref: ([url]http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/03/us_bank_closes_uc_davis_branch_cites_intolerable_occupy_protests.php[/url]) “At one point, US Bank went as far as to hire private security guards to stand watch outside the branch, but they were recalled after the university said they weren’t acceptable.”
Ref: ([url]http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/us-bank-flees-in-terror-from-direct-action/[/url]) “Despite sustained efforts at intimidation by bank managers, private security guards, UC Davis police and administrators, the bank blockade stood its ground, even when faced with arrest threats, student judicial sanctions, and physical confrontations.”
It should be expected that if UC Davis waives US Bank the rent, and pays for its employee and business losses, US Bank would really have no reason to leave. US Bank is not complaining that they don’t get to serve the students. US Bank is complaining that no one is paying for their loss while they still have to pay rent and their employees.
UC Davis should have the liberty to choose and to try any legal mediation method as long as they remain accountable to the affected parties. In this case, the affected party is US Bank. UC Davis can ask for US Bank’s cooperation to try new mediation methods, but US Bank is not obligated to cooperate. UC Davis should pay for the damages caused by their attempt to mediate instead of arrest (as US Bank expected). When UC Davis insists US Bank not to use private security, UC Davis becomes accountable unless US Bank waived UC Davis that accountability.
On the other hand, US Bank could also choose to forgive UC Davis and preserve. If US Bank does that, it would be an honorable act, not an obligation. Legally this is messy because of the contract. But ethically US Bank does not need to stay because UC Davis is not picking up the bills.
If this is the situation, UC Davis needs to be very clear about its tone because it cannot sound like US Bank is being a whim for leaving. UC Davis should clarify what agreement was made (if any), when they asked US Bank not to use their security guards.
First reference link was bad. Corrected:
Ref: ([url]http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/03/us_bank_closes_uc_davis_branch_cites_intolerable_occupy_protests.php[/url]) “At one point, US Bank went as far as to hire private security guards to stand watch outside the branch, but they were recalled after the university said they weren’t acceptable.”