We began this week with an analysis that Chancellor Linda Katehi ought to lose her job over her role in creating the conditions for the pepper-spraying incident to have occurred.
Now we have a very strongly-worded condemnation of the chancellor by the Academic Senate. In their words, they “censure” the chancellor for “failure to perform adequately the tasks of her office and failure to provide clarity, candor and trustworthy accounts in relation to the events of Nov. 18.”
The question that everyone must ask is what exactly does all of this mean? The answer is a whole lot and not a lot.
Understand, this is not a fringe, left-leaning group of faculty members such as make up the UCD Faculty Association. This is a mainstream group of professors, some of them the tops in their field. So, while it was not a huge body voting on this, there are apparently 34 members and they represent a representative subsection of the faculty population.
Supporters of Chancellor Katehi can hang onto the fact that the chancellor survived a February no-confidence vote, but that vote occurred before the very damning report came out from Kroll and the Reynoso Task Force.
Academic Senate Chair Linda Bisson told the Davis Enterprise that, “by reprimanding Katehi, a member of the Senate, instead of calling for her resignation as chancellor, the Executive Council felt that it had the best chance to bring reform to the campus and UC system as a whole.”
“Our goal is to have a campus that allows this type of dissent and treats people with respect and is inclusive,” she said. “What it came down to is, the existing (chancellor) has pledged to do what we want to do and change things. As one person put it, ‘Give her enough rope. If she hangs herself, fine. If she doesn’t, it’s all to the good for all of us.’ “
“The fear goes that if you bring in someone new, they won’t be committed to make those changes. This is a chance to effect meaningful change throughout the system with respect to how we approach student unrest and protests on the campus.”
That is an interesting perspective. It is not one that a lot of the activists will embrace, but the problem with a call for Chancellor Katehi’s head has always been that she would simply be replaced by the same body that hired her in the first place. And that is really THE PROBLEM.
The Executive Committee called the Special Committee “deeply divided” on the issues of personnel change. That is certainly true. Although they voted 3-0, with some abstentions, for the resignation of Chief Spicuzza, that is a moot point now. They also voted 4-1 with an abstention for the resignation of both Vice Chancellor’s. And 3-2 for the ultimate resignation.
The most powerful part of the report was the three core principles that they absolutely and completely hammered the chancellor on.
I think it is important to contrast what the faculty said with the language of UCD Spokesperson Barry Shiller, who in response said, “I honestly can’t count how many times – she said she’s accountable for what occurred.”
The faculty said, “To date, the Chancellor has not truly taken full responsibility for the incident on November 18, 2011.”
This has been our belief and concern for quite some time. The chancellor has stated that she takes full responsibility, but we have never been told exactly what full responsibility means. And part of that means that she has not explained what exactly she did wrong.
The faculty is not in a forgiving mood when they write: “The chancellor has on a number of occasions claimed that she has taken full responsibility for the events; however, to date she has not acknowledged the mistakes and errors of judgment that she has made as documented in Kroll and Reynoso.”
That is in sharp contrast to what the spokesperson said. For the faculty, a “less-than-forthcoming accounts of events” by her administration also has bred mistrust.
Furthermore, they called the chancellor’s performance of her duties during the planning and execution of the tent clearing and other protests to be “woefully inadequate.”
Finally, they argued that, in order for the leader to function, she must have the trust of the community. Here they argued: “Chancellor Katehi’s lack of candor, consistency and clarity in the aftermath of the events has undermined the community’s trust in her leadership (Reynoso, 26- 7; Kroll, 58-9).”
In fact, they called her organization “a dysfunctional organizational structure that values public relations over candor and its own self-interest over the interests of the campus community or the reputation of the institution.”
“Specifically, we are concerned with the professionalization of the administrative group, which has produced a deep divide between the administration and the rest of the campus.”
In fact, they go further than that in questioning the “inconsistencies and gaps in statements made by the leadership team to Kroll,” which they argue may be “deliberate acts of omission, obfuscation or misdirection” and, while they acknowledge they cannot rule out “faulty memory,” they find these inconsistencies “troubling.”
I think the most important point is kind of captured in statements by Julia Simon, chair of the special committee, who told the Enterprise that some people just did not think it was appropriate to make recommendations for terminating administrative employees, while others were divided on what should be done.
She said, “The differences of opinion really come from disagreeing what the best course of action is after what’s gone on.”
However, on the other recommendations and the overall findings, the special committee was in complete agreement, as was the Executive Council.
There will, in the end, be people frustrated that the chancellor will not be forced, at least at this time, to resign. We share at least some of those frustrations.
But at the same time, we need to understand the bigger picture here. We have seen a clear snapshot of the utter dysfunctionality of the administration. There has been no attempt to whitewash. There has been no cover-up.
Given the nature of large bureaucratic organizations and the overall structure of UC, that fact in and of itself is remarkable.
To a large extent, the problems with Linda Katehi are endemic to UC as a whole and will only be fixed by changing the structure of UC and its governance.
In many ways, the pepper-spray incident may go down much like the 1968 Parisian Protests, which began as simple student protests but exposed the corruptions and dysfunction of the French Government to the point where it ended up bringing down, remarkably enough, the entire Fourth Republic.
On the other hand, it is also worth noting that while to some extent the Chair of Academic Senate is correct that Chancellor Katehi will be more invested in reform than a potential replacement, it is also true that once the light has faded the glare of scrutiny may not be as powerful as it was on November 18 and, remarkably enough, as it still is now.
That is due to the faculty who seemed truly disturbed by what they call “the unacceptable treatment of our students by the administrators and the campus police.”
They “unanimously agree that the pepper spraying of protesters on November 18, 2011 was completely unnecessary and avoidable, regardless of the legality of the operation.”
I think, more than anything else, those involved and those of us who have watched should take solace in one fact, and one fact only: the truth has come out and while it is ugly, at least we know just how ugly it is.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Our goal is to have a campus that allows this type of dissent and treats people with respect and is inclusive,”
respect? “from davis to greece Fu*!! the police!”
is that the kind of respect to which she was referring?
I think there simultaneously needs to be a censure of protestor conduct. but we wont get it unfortunately.
Contrast Octane’s statement with the Kroll report:
[quote]At approximately 3:53, activists began chanting “From Davis to Greece, fuck the police.” This chant immediately drew a response from the gathered crowd, with several people saying “no, no” and urging the activists to “keep it non-violent” and “peaceful.” After three
repetitions, or about 15 seconds, the chant faded. The activists then began to chant “You use weapons, we use our voice.”[/quote]
I find it odd that you continually focus on very small snippets of the protest as opposed to the larger picture of the administrative failures. And while the protesters made clear mistakes at points in time, those mistakes were impromptu responses to stimuli whereas the administration planned their response for days and still massively screwed up.
“I think there simultaneously needs to be a censure of protestor conduct. but we wont get it unfortunately.”
The idea that the conduct of a small group of students is somehow comparable to the conduct of administrators, being paid $200K to $400K is ludicrous. Moreover, what would a censure of students mean? And how could the faculty group censure students, on what basis would they even derive authority to do so? I think you are largely throwing stuff out to be provocative here because basically every single person who has analyzed and investigated what happened out there disagrees with you and what you said prior to the report being released. You have been discredited and disproven every step of the way. And when asked to substantiated your charges, you present no case.
First of all, as I said before, the trouble, as we all know, and factually proven, began with the tents being put up.
There would have been no incident, and no pepperspray, or anything else, if it wasn’t for the tents. The kroll report really does not address this.
Second, let us cut the crap. We all know damned well we are in the peoples republic of davis here. The professors are far left wing. the vanguard is far left wing. the enterprise is left wing. the students are far left wing. the council is left wing.
why do you think reynoso and kroll never criticized protestor conduct? duhhh!!!!
Simply put, because of political leanings, the facts as they pertain to protestor conduct have largely been ignored.
What this article and other recent ones illustrate for me, is the factual, completeness of especially the Kroll Report. Early on, the collective we disparaged the selection of Kroll and doubted its credibility to do a fair investigation. It turned out not to be true.
This article points out the candor or lack of by the Chancellor and her team to the Kroll investigation, “discrepancies and gaps” etc.
That aspect has not been highlighted before. Another nail?
At approximately 3:53, activists began chanting “From Davis to Greece, f**k the police.” This chant immediately drew a response from the gathered crowd, with several people saying “no, no” and urging the activists to “keep it non-violent” and “peaceful.” After three
repetitions, or about 15 seconds, the chant faded. The activists then began to chant “You use weapons, we use our voice.”
the voices “from davis to greece…” were a lot louder than any counter voices. and whether it was fifteen seconds or not, they bear blame when the words escaped their mouths.
“First of all, as I said before, the trouble, as we all know, and factually proven, began with the tents being put up.”
Factually proven? What was factually proven is that the trouble began when the university couldn’t figure out what to do when the tents were put up. Had they merely let the tents stay up, none of this would have happened and the tent would have been down less than a week later.
“There would have been no incident, and no pepperspray, or anything else, if it wasn’t for the tents. The kroll report really does not address this.”
Yeah it does actually. They extensively examined the university’s response to the tents and whether the university should have responded at all.
“Second, let us cut the crap. We all know damned well we are in the peoples republic of davis here. The professors are far left wing. the vanguard is far left wing. the enterprise is left wing. the students are far left wing. the council is left wing.”
This is helpful analysis.
“why do you think reynoso and kroll never criticized protestor conduct?”
Kroll was made up of retired police officers probably most of whom are conservative if not very conservative. The Reynoso Task Force is comprised in part of administrators, most of whom had a stake in exonerating the administration and yet they didn’t? Why? Because they couldn’t.
and who’s kidding who, the intent to cause a confrontation between protestors and police began with the tents, and we all know it.
These students are not stupid. they knew about all the trouble caused elsewhere via tent cities i.e. oakland so they knew exactly how to cause the trouble they wanted.
simply put, the oakland protests and tents provided these people a blueprint for causing trouble.
Octane: Please provide a listing of all people who worked on the Kroll investigative team, and show their political leanings. Then list all members of the task force and analyze their political leanings along with their institutional outlook. For example why would Peter Blando or Dan Dooley be predisposed to criticize the administration. Thanks for your consideration.
“To a large extent the problems with Linda Katehi are endemic to UC as a whole and will only be fixed by changing the structure of UC and its governance.”
True, and the targets of the protest are part of an even wider circle of problems. This event exposed how poorly prepared UCD was to understand and deal with protesters.
Because the problems revealed were so numerous (communication, training, planning, supervision, management) and were at every level (from Katehi to the “boots on the ground”), it’s likely that things would have played out pretty much the same regardless of who happened to be chancellor when it happened.
Even though the Executive Council and the administration are pledging a wary cooperation to make changes needed in dealing with dissent (ala Reynoso/Kroll), there are two groups that never will be satisfied by what is accomplished along these lines.
First, the large body of students justifiably angry about increasing costs and the lifetime debts brought by the federal student loan program (originally intended to help students deal with the first problem, but instead only exacerbated it when banks realized its cash cow potential).
Second, the small group of radical professors whose demands to rid UC campuses of administration feed on the students’ distress will not have their anarchistic needs met be anything the Academic Senate and the administration accomplish to improve UCD accommodation and reaction. To the extent these leaders encourage students to purposely break laws as part of their demonstrations, any truce will be short-lived. And, every protest has the potential to expose UCD’s inabilities to be successful in dealing with such lawbreaking.
oh, and one more thing. there was nothing preventing them from issuing a general statement in their censure that chants like the one I just mentioned, were not a good idea.
Octane: I’ll say it. The protesters were ill-advised to have chanted from Davis to Greece and fortunately smarter heads prevailed. Now please focus on the much broader problem.
“Factually proven? What was factually proven is that the trouble began when the university couldn’t figure out what to do when the tents were put up. Had they merely let the tents stay up, none of this would have happened and the tent would have been down less than a week later.”
none of this would have happened if hadn’t gone up in the first place and thats a fact.
Yeah it does actually. They extensively examined the university’s response to the tents and whether the university should have responded at all.
yes, it examined the university’s response, not whether they should have been up in the first place. What it never occurred to them to say the tents were a problem?
JustSaying:
I agree with some of what you say. I’m not sure I agree with you that this would have happened no matter who was the chancellor. I think previous chancellors handled protests better. A person that is interesting to talk to about this is Former Mayor Maynard Skinner who once served in a similar capacity to John Meyer with the university during the 1960s and teh Bud Black days.
Second, while you mention the students and radical professors, you have not mentioned the apologists who I think are also a clear problem here.
But one of the reasons I find this report valuable is it gives the opinions of the non-radicals and non-apologists. Where is the middle ground here? I think this report captures that fairly well even if it perhaps does not go far enough.
Octane: I’ll say it. The protesters were ill-advised to have chanted from Davis to Greece and fortunately smarter heads prevailed. Now please focus on the much broader problem and complete the information request I presented above.
yes, the problem with the tents. the main problem
and fortunately smarter heads prevailed.
no, they didn’t. they carried on with – if you let them go, we will let you leave and the other one, including using the encirclement technique.
“none of this would have happened if hadn’t gone up in the first place and thats a fact.”
That’s like saying none of this would have happened if we didn’t have air on this planet. While true, you cannot reasonably deduce that the fault lies in the fact that we have air and thus life.
Even if you believe that putting up the tents was not legal, which is still a matter in considerable question, the problems stem from the failure of the university to deal with the legal issue properly and these reports analyze how the university as the governing authority properly dealt with a protest situation.
in short, there was enough material against the protestors, that any reasonably minded person could have blasted them publicly, all they needed was the chutzpah.
“What this article and other recent ones illustrate for me, is the factual, completeness of especially the Kroll Report. Early on, the collective we disparaged the selection of Kroll and doubted its credibility to do a fair investigation. It turned out not to be true.”
Excellent point, SODA. The collective “we”–well, at least some of us–attempted to discredit Kroll as well as the administration for establishing Justice Reynoso’s investigation itself as self-serving and inadequate to the task and suggested a whitewash in the making. What “we” found, instead, was a no-holds-barred, fair and fairly complete finding.
The only shortcoming was the police union’s and UCD Counsel’s lack of cooperation–decisions that backfired on the cops involved, in my opinion, by leaving confused the legal issues about making arrests and using unauthorized pepper spray.
That’s like saying none of this would have happened if we didn’t have air on this planet. While true, you cannot reasonably deduce that the fault lies in the fact that we have air and thus life.
lol, faulty analogy. Big time, and you know it.
the problems stem from the failure of the university to deal with the legal issue properly and these reports analyze how the university as the governing authority properly dealt with a protest situation.
no, the problem stems from the tents and protestors trying to find ways to cause trouble.
But one of the reasons I find this report valuable is it gives the opinions of the non-radicals and non-apologists.
that is debateable.
“Second, while you mention the students and radical professors, you have not mentioned the apologists who I think are also a clear problem here.”
Who are these “apologist” dudes and what did/do they do that’s a problem.
91 octane and David, what if one or both of you concede that the other could be just as correct in a “chicken and egg” way. Then you could move on to your other, maybe more significant, arguments about what happened. You’re probably both wrong , anyway. Or, both right. Or….
JustSaying:
Ask our friend Professor Kuperberg or just read his posts.
As for the chicken in the egg, really I think the difference between Octane and myself is that to me the critical question is how the authorities handled the protesters, we do not have a lot of control over how the protesters conduct themselves and from a policy perspective it is far more important to assess the response. Add in the asymmetry of expertise, experience, power and authority and to me what this was about was the mishandling of what could have and should have been a minor protest. Look no further to the experience with similar types of protests in the city of Davis and how Davis chose to handle the issue rather than UCD.
we do not have a lot of control over how the protesters conduct themselves and from a policy perspective it is far more important to assess the response.
in other words, the protestors are not responsible for their actions.
That’s not what I said.
no, of course not.
First of all, the motion of censure isn’t unreasonable. The composition of the Executive Council is fairly similar to the composition of the entire voting faculty. What the Executive Council meant, per Linda Bisson’s explanation, was that the job performance of Katehi, Meyer, Wood, Spicuzza, etc., specifically during the week of November 18, was unacceptably bad. From the Kroll report, that’s hard to dispute. Unless sometimes takes a vote of censure to mean 50% of the way to sacking all of these people, then for all I know, I would have voted for censure too.
The special committee had only six voting faculty members, and maybe just by random selection, three of them were from the roughly 30% minority who want to see heads roll. So when the Davis Vanguard quotes the special committee’s report as “the faculty” this and “the faculty” that, that’s the same tendentious tone that we’ve had all along: 30% talking as if they’re the 99%.
Now as for the what the Vanguard calls THE PROBLEM, that is the outrageous attitude of backseat driving that is the most dangerous of all to UC Davis or to any large important institution. THE ONLY PROBLEM, the argument goes, is if we overthrew that scoundrel Katehi, then the same pack of scoundrels who hired her would just find another one. If not for that crushing obstacle, we could easily solve all of our problems.
But the special committee’s recommendation to fire Katehi AND Meyer AND Wood AND Spicuzza gives the lie to that arrogance. Meyer used to be the city manager of Davis and a lot of people happen to know that he’s not a scoundrel, he’s a good man. A lot of people know that about Fred Wood too. So why did the same committee that voted 3-2 to fire Katehi, vote 4-1 to fire Meyer and Wood? It was the logically consistent answer, because the Kroll/Reynoso report made them look at least as bad, Meyer in particular because (a) Spicuzza answered to him, and (b) unlike Katehi, he was there when Spicuzza was hired.
What it comes down to is that a lot of people who don’t really understand the job of a chancellor or any of the vice chancellors, have an itch to see heads roll — and cut the salaries of their successors — because they imagine out of nothing that it’s easy to hire such people.
Octane “no, the problem stems from the tents and protestors trying to find ways to cause trouble”
No the problem stemmed from the regents raising tuition again which stemmed from the loss of state revenue which stemmed from the complete intransigence of the Republicans in the legislature to provide any additional revenue and their ability to do so because of their no new taxes pledge.
Setting up tents was a first amendment right of expression and peaceful assembly. Certainly the University Center is an appropriate place for such an assembly.
Excoriating the police with vulgar chants isn’t smart but the responsibility for their actions is limited to their actions just as the responsibility for the police and administrative actions lies with the police and administration.
Octane wrote: “Second, let us cut the crap. We all know damned well we are in the peoples republic of davis here. The professors are far left wing. the vanguard is far left wing. the enterprise is left wing. the students are far left wing. the council is left wing.
why do you think reynoso and kroll never criticized protestor conduct? duhhh!!!!
Simply put, because of political leanings, the facts as they pertain to protestor conduct have largely been ignored.”
Octane: Please provide a listing of all people who worked on the Kroll investigative team, and show their political leanings. Then list all members of the task force and analyze their political leanings along with their institutional outlook. For example why would Peter Blando or Dan Dooley be predisposed to criticize the administration. Thanks for your consideration.
[quote]As for the chicken in the egg, really I think the difference between Octane and myself is that to me the critical question is how the authorities handled the protesters, we do not have a lot of control over how the protesters conduct themselves and from a policy perspective it is far more important to assess the response. Add in the asymmetry of expertise, experience, power and authority and to me what this was about was the mishandling of what could have and should have been a minor protest. Look no further to the experience with similar types of protests in the city of Davis and how Davis chose to handle the issue rather than UCD.[/quote]
Concentrating on just one side of the equation isn’t completely fair IMO. The protestors certainly had a hand in this. Protestors actions + adminstration’s response = pepper spraying incident + bank protest
To what extent each contributed to the outcome is certainly a matter of dispute. Objectively speaking that is a very subjective matter. But certainly there is a logical argument to be made but for the actions of the protestors, there would have been no pepper spraying incident or bank protest. Normally colleges are not expected to deal w protests as part of the academic mission, but it has become clear it will have to become part and parcel of the academic mission from a practical standpoint. What happened at UCD should be an object lesson for all college campuses.
Since the students got a pass for bad behavior (except in the case of the bank protests), why not give the UCD admininstration a chance to get it right? Clearly the pepper spraying incident gave the university the impetus they needed for necessary change, and it appears the university is ready to make those necessary changes. What one of us has not made a mistake in our lives that we deeply regretted? For those who would sit in judgment, I would say, “There but for the grace of God go I”.
As for the Kroll/Reynoso report, I always thought (and said) we should wait and see if it would make the appropriate findings and recommendations. It certainly seems to be a relatively if not completely fair report. There are still some questions left unnanswered (to what extent did Katehi control the actions of the university police), and there clearly is a bias that absolves the protestors of any responsibility. But that is understandable, since it was the authors’ charge to look at the culpability of the administration and university police force. To look at the students’ actions as somewhat reprehensible would have only added fuel to the fire.
What concerns me the most at this point is the participation of UCD professors in this entire debacle. They set the bad example for our impressionable youth, and yet are going to skate on this completely. I believe they should be part and parcel of the censure as well.
Just my views…
“What concerns me the most at this point is the participation of UCD professors in this entire debacle.”
That concerns you more than the systematic mishandling of the situation by the administration? The lack of clear legal authority? The overreaction by the police in using pepper spray on students? Really?
You call these impressionable youth and yet I doubt you have met or talked with a single one of them. I just do not believe you know enough to have an opinion here.
“Ask our friend Professor Kuperberg or just read his posts.”
I do read his posts and think he makes ultimate sense. I respect his insight partly because he’s in the middle of the whole show and partly as I would anyone who knows why my right pinky always hurts so much.
What I wonder is who are these “apologists” to which you refer and what role do you attribute to them since you want to add them to my complete, I thought, list of players (radical professors, sometimes inept and embattled administrators and always put-upon students).
Please explain.
“You call these impressionable youth and yet I doubt you have met or talked with a single one of them. I just do not believe you know enough to have an opinion here.”
Yike, what’s this discussion degrading to?
I see them playing a role in preserving the status quo. They seem content with the Chancellor so long as she brings in the fundraising.
“Yike, what’s this discussion degrading to?”
I put you in the same boat – you want to throw the Joshua Clovers under the bus without a real understanding of their role and the interchanges between the younger activists and some faculty members. Calling them impressionable youth is dismissive and seems to suggest that they cannot think for themselves and ignores their concerns, their frustrations, and more important how their interactions have played out through discourse and debate over time.
The discussion here revolves almost entirely around the Katehi administration’s response to the protest on the Quad, as if tents had magically appeared one day, for no reason. This makes it possible for the myopic to claim that “the problem” began with the protesters. In fact, this and many other protests are responses to a larger problem: Katehi and the regents are carrying out a systematic agenda of privatization which benefits their own class interests, but which prices some students out of higher education and places an onerous, lifelong debt burden on the rest.
Now, regarding the protesters on the Quad: some here claim that the protesters were out of line, that they shouldn’t have chanted certain things, or placed themselves in a circle, etc. This also misses the point completely. We now know that the police had no legal right to remove the protesters from the space. We also know that the cops also knew that their actions were illegal. This is all in the Kroll/Reynoso report, which those of you not named David Greenwald seem not to have read. So when faced with cops who, despite knowing their actions to be illegal, still chose to beat, arrest, and pepper spray students, I think chants of opprobrium like “F— the police” were, in fact, the appropriate response. So if you want to focus on the protesters and what [i]they[/i] should have done, you need to confront the argument that I’m making here—faced with a gang of law-breaking thugs (the cops) who were clubbing, hog-tying, and using illegal weapons on their friends, what the protesters [i]should have done[/i] is to have prevented these violent actions by overwhelming and disarming the criminal gang with force of numbers.
Heads are going to roll. Its just a matter of time until Katehi or others go. She should have imposed her own punishment when she had the chance and maybe 80 hours of self flagellation on the quad might have saved her but its too late now. The notable part of the Academic Senate report is where they differ from Reynoso about this being an isolated event, which of course, it was not. If it wasn’t this incident that made everyone say enough it would have been some other event, the pattern of repression under Katehi and Meyer had been set.
This isn’t going to go away and when the regents realize the paralysis that this generates for the institution they will cut their losses. What will happen to these people is anyones guess but hopefully they have a good cushion saved from their high salaries. I hope they paid off their student loans. Since its anyones gues here is mine. Chances are they will land on their feet. The elite tend to take care of their own and these people, despite their failures, do have extroidinary talent and experience. Katehi will end up as a fund raiser for some institution; UC in Oakland, the Getty museum or someplace like the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry. Meyer will go back to being City Manager somewhere like Stockton when it comes out of bankruptcy or Reno. Hexter will probably take over as Chancellor at least on a temporary basis. Wood goes back to teaching.
What are your guesses?
“To what extent each contributed to the outcome is certainly a matter of dispute. Objectively speaking that is a very subjective matter. But certainly there is a logical argument to be made but for the actions of the protestors, there would have been no pepper spraying incident or bank protest. Normally colleges are not expected to deal w protests as part of the academic mission, but it has become clear it will have to become part and parcel of the academic mission from a practical standpoint. What happened at UCD should be an object lesson for all college campuses.”
Bingo! An insightful observation, Elaine. And demanding that the university “clean house” displays a certain lack of understanding of how all parties performed poorly in this event. And how it will take all of them to work in concert to make it work better. Just my view….
JustSaying – Of course it’s cool if you like what I have to say. I should clarify this though: I am not nearly as much in the middle of the WHOLE show as, for instance, Joshua Clover. I also don’t want to be the middle of the whole show.
What I would say that I (just like most of the faculty) am in the middle of the REAL show: the ordinary work of a university. For me, a university is a place for research, teaching, and other mutual consensual discussions; and also on the side sometimes a place for protests. The attitude that I think is ruinous is that the university a great home for protests, and also some research and teaching on the side.
Anyway, I was asked whether I want heads to roll, and my answer was no. (Other than Spicuzza and Pike. I was not asked if I want their heads to roll, but if I am not against it.) If I were asked whether the administration did a terrible job in the week of November 18th, my answer would be yes. Only a radical would take this to mean that I think that *any* UC Davis administrator is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I certainly don’t think that. Some of them are decent enough, but above all it would be both difficult and disruptive to replace them, for one reason because their compensation is generally below the market median.
Also, only an arrogant radical would take “the office of the chancellor” to mean “the office of coping with protesters and begging for money”. That is an equally ruinous interpretation of university leadership.
When Katehi was hired with a huge raise during a time of economic contraction, fiscal austerity and repeated steep tuition hikes it was totally predictable that she would deal with campus protest. To claim otherwise is plainly naive. Katehi tried to control dissent through force and failed.
“Also, only an arrogant radical would take “the office of the chancellor” to mean “the office of coping with protesters and begging for money”. That is an equally ruinous interpretation of university leadership.”
I think that’s largely a strawman. I think most people though agree with this point: “the Chancellor is ultimately responsible for actions performed under her authority.” And so while yes, it’s not an office primarily to cope with protesters, there are a number of mistakes that were made in the course of doing just that.
Based on that, the proper question is how do we correct things.
What troubles people like me, who are not radicals but rather people in tend to agree with the concerns of the more radical elements in this case, is this: “The chancellor has on a number of occasions claimed that she has taken full responsibility for the events; however, to date she has not acknowledged the mistakes and errors of judgment that she has made as documented in Kroll and Reynoso.”
Yes she says she takes full responsibility, she’s willing to perhaps implement changes, but she has never come forward to acknowledge her errors.
Now provide me with a good response here and I’ll revoke my “apologist” label (and I understand my label is not a great concern to you, it’s more a rhetorical statement at this point).
“Calling them impressionable youth is dismissive and seems to suggest that they cannot think for themselves and ignores their concerns, their frustrations, and more important how their interactions have played out through discourse and debate over time.”
It doesn’t suggest any such thing to me. Maybe you should ask her what she means by her use of the term before you assign some outrageous, straw man definition to her words and use that to claim she doesn’t “know enough to have an opinion here.”
What “boat” are you talking about? This is not a war of absolutes. It sounds as though you’re deciding that people who have a different opinion must be uninformed, ignorant or apologistic. (I am still ignorant about what you mean by “apologists.”)
I’ve seen and heard Joshua Clover in action with the demonstrating students. I’ve read his extensive writings on his views of the university and society. I’ve plenty of information to form my own opinion about whether he influences student demonstrators and what his message is to them.
You may have read of his opinions, but what you have not done is see the interaction between he and the students and the debates over how to proceed.
“What I would say that I (just like most of the faculty) am in the middle of the REAL show: the ordinary work of a university. For me, a university is a place for research, teaching, and other mutual consensual discussions; and also on the side sometimes a place for protests. The attitude that I think is ruinous is that the university a great home for protests, and also some research and teaching on the side.
Anyway, I was asked whether I want heads to roll, and my answer was no. (Other than Spicuzza and Pike. I was not asked if I want their heads to roll, but if I am not against it.) If I were asked whether the administration did a terrible job in the week of November 18th, my answer would be yes. Only a radical would take this to mean that I think that *any* UC Davis administrator is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I certainly don’t think that. Some of them are decent enough, but above all it would be both difficult and disruptive to replace them, for one reason because their compensation is generally below the market median.”
Oh, crap, now I get it, I think. “Apologists”–as in Vichy collaborators, as in non-radical student body and faculty members, as in the majority state of the university community. Is this the direction in which you were aiming your label, David? Line us up, I guess.
“You may have read of his opinions, but what you have not done is see the interaction between he and the students and the debates over how to proceed.”
Reminds me of the old tale of the blind wisemen and the elephant. With which part are you engaged?
How has Katehi taken responsibility? Well, protesters have offered the administration about five do-overs: they reoccupied the quad, they invaded Dutton Hall, the invaded the old cross-cultural cottage, they blockaded the bank, and at least one of them spray-painted hostile graffiti on campus. Each time the administration managed not to fall into the trap of police overreaction. Yes, coping with protesters is some part of the administration’s job (although I’d probably move to some other university if it had to be the main job), and they seem to be learning to outsmart the opposing radicals.
From another point of view, the administration and they can’t win. Occupy UC Davis was hostile to the administration from the beginning. For those who simply agree with the movement, the administration is either incompetent or already deposed if the movement succeeds; or it is the victorious enemy if the movement fails.
Of course someone might imagine that there is some way for the UC Davis administration to accede to the demands of Occupy UC Davis for lower tuition. But there really isn’t; rational financial accounting is the last thing on their minds.
So you largely dismiss the concerns in the Academic Senate’s report?
The question of whether students are impressionable youth is interesting, and doesn’t really depend on the specific behavior of Joshua Clover. Basically there are two kinds of students: those who are here to learn, and those who already know everything. Those who are here to learn are impressionable youth — that’s the whole point! Those who already know everything are wasting their time at the university, and it’s not surprising if they feel especially ripped off by high tuition.
I agree, by the way, that low tuition is better than high tuition and that state funding cuts are short-sighted. I would only say that not everyone is angry about high tuition for good reasons.
David – No, I totally accept the Academic Senate report that the administration needs better protest management. It has looked improved so far, but that does not mean that there shouldn’t be documented reforms.
From the Enterprise: “Academic Senate Chair Linda Bisson said that by reprimanding Katehi, a member of the Senate, instead of calling for her resignation as chancellor, the Executive Council felt that it had the best chance to bring reform to the campus and UC system as a whole. ‘Our goal is to have a campus that allows this type of dissent and treats people with respect and is inclusive’, she said. ‘What it came down to is, the existing (chancellor) has pledged to do what we want to do and change things.’.”
This seems like a reasonable approach, one that expresses faculty concerns about what happened and acknowledges Katehi’s concern and commitment to fix things. The chancellor has taken “full responsibility” several times, a difficult undertaking since everyone now knows (thanks to Reynoso and Kroll and our own common sense) just how diffuse justifyable blame is here.
It also probably would be helpful to take a look at the other reports noted in the Enterprise article before claiming the UC administration hasn’t done anything to take on this issue:
“Katehi has said her administration’s plans for change will take into account both the Senate special committee’s report and a systemwide UC report on policing protests, a draft of which is due out on Friday. Shiller said much of what the committee recommended is reflected in the proposals the administration posted on Wednesday. He called it an ‘unintended convergence’ that the proposals, which address the Kroll and Reynoso reports, were placed online on the same day the Academic Senate published its report.”
“… they blockaded the bank….Each (of the five times) the administration managed not to fall into the trap of police overreaction….”
Ah, yes, professor, but there are some for which such restraint was unsatisfactory. Some still argue that police should have swept in and arrested (and released) the blockaders everyday of the demonstration until the lawbreakers finally got tired and headed home for good. This way, it’s conjectured, the bank branch would still be open and the blockaders might have ended up with fewer charges (or more, who knows?).
By showing restraint, university officials are to blame both for the bank closing and for the students now having to face charges instead of having more study time for finals. Sure, it’s counter-intuitive; sometimes great wisdom is. Sometimes no amount of restraint is enough and a little is way too much.
“By showing restraint”
That’s an interesting choice of words. I think a better term might be hesitancy to act or even indecisiveness.
“Occupy UC Davis was hostile to the administration from the beginning.”
But I wasn’t.
When her admissions scandal in IL. broke I didn’t think it was a big deal. As you would say about bank logos on ID’s BFD. When the police used force to stop people from getting on I-80 I thought it was a reasonable use of force to stop a public safety hazard.
Over time though I began to see an authoritarian reaction to ongoing protests, Finally in the wake of the pepper spray incident Katehi lost me with her post incident emails where she condoned the use of force through her failure to condemn it. I obviously am not alone in my loss of confidence and although she still has the support of many as evidenced by the Faculty votes of support the damage done to her reputation, I believe, has becomean insurmountable barrier to her continued leadership. I believe eventually, as this drags on, the Regents are likely to come to the same conclusion.
Greg, Just the other day you were writing about the importance of faculty support. While of lesser value than the full faculty vote with majority support the conclusion by the Acedemic Study Group cannot be considered anything less than damaging. One wonders if the full faculty were to vote again, after Kroll, Reynoso and now this latest report from a group appointed by the Academic Senate, not to mention sober editorials from places like the Sacramento Bee, if the results of a no confidence faculty vote might differ significantly. Of course the need for such a vote just drags things on longer and calls into question if it is possible to ever move forward while Katehi remain Chancellor.
Wow. Blaming the protestors for protesting. What year is this? I think we settled that issue in the 60’s. Protest on public property is protected. Period.
Now, you can have 1st Amendment Zones and whatnot. Bush Administration figured that one out for National Parks.
The protestors need to take some responsibility. For what? Exercising their rights?
Or saying some mean thing to the poor policeman? Is the use of the F word now a reason to get pepper sprayed?
Or is having long hair and looking like a hippie leftist English Professor “part of the problem”?
Sometimes it is unbelievable how people will justify the trampling of legal rights of those they disagree with.
Remember those rights we all support when we hold up that American Flag? Those apply to hippie commune leftists as much as right wing gun toting homesteaders. Defending both sides takes courage.
Mr. Toad – First of all, you’re anonymous, which has been allowed as your right in this forum, but does mean that there is no way to use your description of your past opinions.
That said, it is absolutely true that the pepper spray incident radicalized a segment of the faculty, and to a lesser extent, a segment of the students. The psychology of this interesting. Faculty members are only human. Once people make up their minds about an issue, they have trouble changing it. People also don’t like to disagree with their friends. (Disagreeing with a few friends is no problem, but sharply disagreeing with most of your closest friends is very unpleasant.) If you take both factors together, you have clusters of faculty, very clearly clustered in some departments and not others, who will never forgive Katehi for this, although they might eventually stop thinking about the issue.
But not a majority. The discussion in the Executive Council fit the same general 70-30 pattern as the old no confidence vote. Unless there is some new fiasco, faculty opinion has reached a resting point. So what is the 30% minority saying? Some of them are saying, “Katehi can’t be an effective chancellor, because too many of us will never change our minds”. Which means, if not necessarily talking as if they are the 99%, that they’d settle for a filibuster. That might be livable on a one-time basis, but it’s a pretty bad precedent for running a university. There was also a no confidence vote for Vanderhoef, and I was on the other side of that one, but I never said that he was illegitimate just because 30% were against him.
And by the way, since you raised the old grievance of compensation, again, Katehi’s salary is 25% below the market median for her job. She accepted less compensation than her chancellor at UIUC, just as Hexter is paid less than she was paid as Provost at UIUC. Yes, Vanderhoef’s salary was lower still, it’s 2/3 of the market median. By the time of Vanderhoef’s last year, he was an off-market chancellor. What can you expect from an off-market legacy? If you’re lucky, then he might still do a good job. If you’re not so lucky, then he might be retired in all but name. That really was Vanderhoef’s record in his last year as chancellor, when the budget crisis was already pretty bad. He showed very little leadership of any kind, good or bad. Common sense says that it is better to pay $400K for a chancellor than $320K for a non-chancellor.
David, you’re ignoring the fact that Katehi wanted to allow more protest leniency (for educational purposes)? I give university officials more credit than to think they were “indecisive” in deciding to let the protest continue each day, while warning them and documenting the acts of the protestors who actually violated the laws rather than just demonstrating.
I give police credit for keeping the demonstrators, bank employees, customers and onlookers from any injury during two months of tense demonstrating and physical blockades. Why you think that these demonstrators would just walk off with police this time around amazes me. And, then, not return to their same reserved seats within a day? Please. The university’s action was purposeful, peaceful and perfectly in line with Chancellor Katehi’s announced different approach to student demonstrations.
I’m curious if those now facing charges have quit demonstrating, in line with your theory that a get-tough law enforcement approach would discourage them from continuing such activity?
P.S.–I still want to read the warning notices. Can’t you help? Were they specific to the laws the university alleged were being broken? Did they accurately reflect the actions of the most egregious blockaders? Did they threaten that UCD would bring charges if the lawbreaking didn’t stop?
“When her admissions scandal in IL. broke I didn’t think it was a big deal….”
Well, I did. Don’t you wish you would have listened to us back then?! But, she’s here. I’d rather have her get to fixing things than to spend time, energy and goodwill fighting about whether to join a movement to fire her, led by those who wanted all administration off campus before this even happened.
@91 Octane: You don’t seem to get the picture. The law exists, as created by citizens, to serve moral purposes. The law is a derivative of morality, not vice versa. When each particular law seems reasonable by itself, yet the cumulative effect of all particular laws taken together is oppressive, then deliberately breaking a minor law to make a point is something that can serve moral ends and can be an honorable thing to do. It serves as a wake up call to the general population that we need to go back to the drawing board and fix whatever is wrong with the law as a whole system.
If some small group has good intentions but happens to be mistaken in some particular act of civil disobedience, then they will be judged by the “court” of general opinion, and that “verdict” will filter down, morally speaking, to the actual court system and things will find their point of equilibrium.
Greg , as you know, in most elections 50% +1 wins. But in a no confidence advisory vote is that the case? Is there some level where there is a tipping point when taken into the total calculus of the Regents as to whether she should stay or go. Only the Regents know the answer but with report after report and election after election I wonder when the Regents will conclude that it is better to cut bait than fish. Time will tell. My anonymous predictions are on record.
Greg, I appreciate and tend to agree with most of your insights on this matter. It is nice to see some more reasoned and supported statements on this topic in this forum.
I tend to think that dealing with protestors was not and should not have been a significant part of the Chancellor’s job description. I tend to think that Chancellor Katehi should have been able to rely upon Meyer and particularly Spicuzza for providing guidance on handling the protestors. From what I have seen and read, they both failed to provide guidance. My impression is that Spicuzza was known by Meyer and Katehi to not be be as strong at doing her job as she should, so perhaps that puts more blame on them for potentially relying upon someone known not to be reliable. However, I find the degree to which Spicuzza failed in her duties to report to Meyer and Katehi in the events leading up to November 18th stunning.
Many mistakes were made at the administration level, but I believe that if was a series of failures largely related to the police department that were the main factors causing this unfortunate event to occur. Had any one of a number of correct steps been taken by the police department, I believe that none of this would have occurred. My current belief is that Katehi received a lot of bad advice or failed to receive the advice she should have been given by her staff on a number of matters. She generally did not override staff recommendations from what I have read. Castro may have been the only instance where she received the appropriate advice, but failed to act on it. I tend to believe that there is more blame downstream of her, and that while she is “responsible” for “all of “UCD”, that can’t reasonably be taken to mean that if someone below her fails to do their job adequately that she should be sacked, as some seem to demand. The tragedy in all of this in my mind is that more UCD resources will need to be directed away from research and the education of students and towards training the administration to better deal with protests to help ensure that there is not another similar incident in the future. This is not just financial resources, but the human resources, as well.
Mr. Toad – It isn’t really the regents. Katehi was really recruited and hired by Yudof. After that, each chancellor is basically a captain who runs his or her own ship until either retirement or (in rare cases) a mutiny. The regents are volunteers, mostly from outside of academia, and generally play the role of absentee landlords.
If non-confidence in Katehi ever reaches 50%, then she should probably quit at that time. But for now, it’s at about 30%, and with an unusually high degree of overt confidence on the other side. Yeah, she screwed up in November; she needs a much better protest response team. Beyond that, most of the faculty think that it would be disruptive to bring her down. And not because she’s an ace fundraising Girl Scout, nor because the scoundrel regents would just give UC Davis another nincompoop chancellor.
newshoundpm – On the one hand, if people below Katehi fell down on the job, the police chief in particular according to the reports, that’s only half of an excuse. Whoever is the chancellor really does need to shake up the chain of command here. Which, ironically, would not necessarily be easier if we had a new chancellor. After all, both Meyer and Spicuzza were hired under Vanderhoef.
On the other hand, it has pointed out that Griselda Castro sounded great mostly according to Griselda Castro. Now, I do not know that Castro is anything other than a capable and honest administrator. But most people do sound good according to their own testimony. So it has to be taken with a grain of salt.
@Greg: And that’s exactly why the problem occurred in the first place, because people are focused on expediency instead of principle. Katehi needs to be fired for reasons of principle. It was her responsibility and she failed, not just in a small way but in the biggest way possible. If a chancellor can’t be fired for that, then when can they be fired? It’s not supposed to be a position of royalty from which one can never be fired.
Grad student: cut you a deal – fire Katehi, and expell the bankers dozen. Fair trade?
And that’s exactly why the problem occurred in the first place, because people are focused on expediency instead of principle.
and what principles were those? “from davis to greece, Fu** the police!”
You don’t seem to get the picture. The law exists, as created by citizens, to serve moral purposes. The law is a derivative of morality,
don’t lecture me about morality. If your friends at UC Davis hadn’t tried to start a conflict by setting up tents knowing it would cause a problem, there would be no need to waste hour after hour monday morning quarterbacking of responses to a problem that YOUR FRIENDS created. Your concepts of morality leave a lot to be desired.
@ 91 Octane
Was my previous comment written in an idiom you don’t understand?
Let it be stated again: the protesters were not breaking any laws.
Even if they had been breaking the law, they are not the source of privatization, budget cuts, larger class sizes, massive tuition increases and debt loads, or the incompetence of the police and administration.
Your claim that the conflict began when the tents went up is laughable.
Grad student – As I said, it would be ruinous if the Office of the Chancellor were defined as the office of coping with protesters and begging for money. Of course, phrased that way, it sounds too simplistic for anyone to agree with it. But that is the implication if you ask a question like, “If a chancellor can’t be fired for that, then when can they be fired?”
Unlike some people in this discussion, I actually did see a chancellor-equivalent get fired, at my parents’ university where I was an extension student at the time. He was fired for destroying the chain of command around him, not for coping with protests because there had been no protests, but rather the chain of command for running the university. Deans and accountants couldn’t work with him. Anger had an inverted structure compared to the situation here at Davis. Here the ordinary management of the university by the deans is intact, and the most of the anger comes from faculty members with less administrative responsibility.
Yes, Katehi needs to reform the chain of command for dealing with protests. She knows that, everyone knows that.
The worst possible outcome would be if Katehi were replaced by some revolutionary who destroyed the university’s leadership, or one or more of its essential departments. I don’t consider that likely enough to be afraid of it, although it has happened elsewhere. For instance at Florida, if you have been following the news, there is an aggressive dean who tried to kill the computer science department.
” I find it odd that you continually focus on very small snippets of the protest as opposed to the larger picture…”
I find it odd how many folks commenting here and on Sacbee don’t grasp the scope and impact of the events of Nov. 18th, 2011 . It was certainly smaller in scale and less shocking than Tienanmen Square, but there was much available video, seconds after the event !
” On the other hand, it is also worth noting that while to some extent the Chair of Academic Senate is correct that Chancellor Katehi will be more invested in reform than a potential replacement,… ”
I’d make that about a 50/50 proposition . I have yet to hear anything but evasion and contempt from Katehi ! However, her main role was and is raising money and I suspect it is that upon which her continued reign rests .
[quote]“Was my previous comment written in an idiom you don’t understand? Let it be stated again: the protesters were not breaking any laws. [/quote]While it’s true that no one ended up convicted of breaking any laws, that doesn’t mean that no one was breaking laws. While it’s true there was confusion on the scene whether police moving in during the day versus during the night before or the night after would complicate the issue, this makes it a gray issue not a black and white one.
It’s not an idiom problem here; it’s an as yet unresolved legal one.
@JustSaying: There is no law against students camping overnight on UCD property. There is a university policy against it, but no laws against it.
@Greg: It’s not an issue of the chancellor “coping” or not coping with protestors! It’s an issue of creating the worst possible atmosphere for free speech, where protesters are attacked with chemical weapons for not breaking laws and only execising their free speech rights! That is Kent State level stuff. She needs to go if for no other reason than setting an example so that future chancellors or university presidents will know that such a thing is not acceptable and can never happen again.
She knew she was walking into a tough job when she took it, and now is the time for her to face reality and accept the consequences of her own incompetence. That’s life! This isn’t a game where someone can shout “do over!” This is real life. She needs to go. She will go. She cannot stay.
[quote]dmg: That concerns you more than the systematic mishandling of the situation by the administration? The lack of clear legal authority? The overreaction by the police in using pepper spray on students? Really?
You call these impressionable youth and yet I doubt you have met or talked with a single one of them. I just do not believe you know enough to have an opinion here…
Calling them impressionable youth is dismissive and seems to suggest that they cannot think for themselves and ignores their concerns, their frustrations, and more important how their interactions have played out through discourse and debate over time.[/quote]
What part of the equation did you not understand?
[quote]erm: Concentrating on just one side of the equation isn’t completely fair IMO. The protestors certainly had a hand in this. Protestors actions + adminstration’s response = pepper spraying incident + bank protest [/quote]
I am certainly concerned about the administration’s actions (and have said so on numerous occasions), the university police’s actions (and have said so on numerous occasions), and the student’s actions (also have said so on numerous occasions). ALL are in the equation. But the one thing that has been left out of the equation is the part some UCD professors played in the debacle. Yes students have a mind of their own (and is the reason they were charged for blocking a bank entrance), and they have a mind to listen to adults they admire and want to emulate. University professors have a fiduciary duty to set a good example for students, and blocking a campus bank branch is not setting a good example.
[quote]crank:The discussion here revolves almost entirely around the Katehi administration’s response to the protest on the Quad, as if tents had magically appeared one day, for no reason. This makes it possible for the myopic to claim that “the problem” began with the protesters. In fact, this and many other protests are responses to a larger problem: Katehi and the regents are carrying out a systematic agenda of privatization which benefits their own class interests, but which prices some students out of higher education and places an onerous, lifelong debt burden on the rest…
Now, regarding the protesters on the Quad: some here claim that the protesters were out of line, that they shouldn’t have chanted certain things, or placed themselves in a circle, etc. This also misses the point completely. We now know that the police had no legal right to remove the protesters from the space. We also know that the cops also knew that their actions were illegal.[/quote]
I too am concerned about the privatization of a public university, and have said so repeatedly. However, we do not necessarily know the police had no legal right to remove the protestors. JustSaying summed it up nicely:
[quote]JustSaying: While it’s true that no one ended up convicted of breaking any laws, that doesn’t mean that no one was breaking laws. While it’s true there was confusion on the scene whether police moving in during the day versus during the night before or the night after would complicate the issue, this makes it a gray issue not a black and white one.
It’s not an idiom problem here; it’s an as yet unresolved legal one.[/quote]
And on a different point:
[quote]JustSaying: And demanding that the university “clean house” displays a certain lack of understanding of how all parties performed poorly in this event. And how it will take all of them to work in concert to make it work better. Just my view….[/quote]
Bingo!
[quote]dmg: Yes she says she takes full responsibility, she’s willing to perhaps implement changes, but she has never come forward to acknowledge her errors. [/quote]
What is it that you want her to say? Don’t actions speak louder than words? Isn’t what is more important that she institute the necessary changes than mouth all sorts of mea culpas?
[quote]JustSaying: By showing restraint, university officials are to blame both for the bank closing and for the students now having to face charges instead of having more study time for finals. Sure, it’s counter-intuitive; sometimes great wisdom is. Sometimes no amount of restraint is enough and a little is way too much.
dmg: “By showing restraint”
That’s an interesting choice of words. I think a better term might be hesitancy to act or even indecisiveness.[/quote]
To dmg: Don’t you think you are putting the university in a position of da_ned if they do, da_ned if they don’t? On the one hand you argue against the police stepping in and doing anything (pepper spraying incident), then argue on the other hand they should have stepped in and done something (bank blockage). You cannot have it both ways. Any time the police decide to step in, there is always a danger of confrontation and violence.
[quote]civil discourse: Wow. Blaming the protestors for protesting. What year is this? I think we settled that issue in the 60’s. Protest on public property is protected. Period…
Sometimes it is unbelievable how people will justify the trampling of legal rights of those they disagree with. [/quote]
Protestors are not permitted to block/close down on-campus banks, surround or interfere with the police, go out on I-80 and stop traffic, occupy university buildings, disrupt classes. Protestors do not have the right to trample on the rights of others just to get their point across, no matter how justified that point might be…
[quote]JustSaying: “When her admissions scandal in IL. broke I didn’t think it was a big deal….”
Well, I did. Don’t you wish you would have listened to us back then?! But, she’s here. I’d rather have her get to fixing things than to spend time, energy and goodwill fighting about whether to join a movement to fire her, led by those who wanted all administration off campus before this even happened.[/quote]
My sentiments exactly!
[quote]Grad Student: The law is a derivative of morality, not vice versa. When each particular law seems reasonable by itself, yet the cumulative effect of all particular laws taken together is oppressive, then deliberately breaking a minor law to make a point is something that can serve moral ends and can be an honorable thing to do. It serves as a wake up call to the general population that we need to go back to the drawing board and fix whatever is wrong with the law as a whole system.
If some small group has good intentions but happens to be mistaken in some particular act of civil disobedience, then they will be judged by the “court” of general opinion, and that “verdict” will filter down, morally speaking, to the actual court system and things will find their point of equilibrium.
[/quote]
At what point does “breaking a minor law” become a big problem – like closing down an on-campus bank branch, going out on I-80 and endangering the safety of others, disrupting classes, occupying campus buildings. Where do you draw the line?
As for the “court of public opinion”, a lot of people I know actually believe the students got exactly what they deserved by being pepper-sprayed. I don’t happen to subscribe to that viewpoint, but how do we determine who is included in the “court of public opinion”?
[quote]newshoundpm: I tend to think that dealing with protestors was not and should not have been a significant part of the Chancellor’s job description. I tend to think that Chancellor Katehi should have been able to rely upon Meyer and particularly Spicuzza for providing guidance on handling the protestors. From what I have seen and read, they both failed to provide guidance. My impression is that Spicuzza was known by Meyer and Katehi to not be be as strong at doing her job as she should, so perhaps that puts more blame on them for potentially relying upon someone known not to be reliable. However, I find the degree to which Spicuzza failed in her duties to report to Meyer and Katehi in the events leading up to November 18th stunning…
My current belief is that Katehi received a lot of bad advice or failed to receive the advice she should have been given by her staff on a number of matters. She generally did not override staff recommendations from what I have read. She generally did not override staff recommendations from what I have read. Castro may have been the only instance where she received the appropriate advice, but failed to act on it…[/quote]
What we don’t know is to what extent Spicuzza was permitted to do her job. Remember the police wanted to go in at 3 am, but were overruled by Katehi?
[quote]The tragedy in all of this in my mind is that more UCD resources will need to be directed away from research and the education of students and towards training the administration to better deal with protests to help ensure that there is not another similar incident in the future. This is not just financial resources, but the human resources, as well.[/quote]
Well said!
The “unresolved legal problem” exists only in the minds of those who wish to blame students, no matter what the evidence has shown.
Again, the Kroll/Reynoso report states unequivocally that THERE WAS NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REMOVAL OF PROTESTERS FROM THE QUAD. Go read it before returning to obsessively troll The Vanguard.
@ERM: Eventually the court of public opinion leads to new legislation to reflect the desires of the people.
The yahoos who think the protesters deserved to be pepper sprayed on Nov. 18 are part of a tiny fringe of grossly misguided people, in this case. They wouldn’t be smart enough to cajole a newspaper carrier into throwing the paper onto dry pavement, let alone influence important legislation.
“What is it that you want her to say?”
I think you should ask the academic senate, it was their comment. I tend to agree with it.
“Don’t you think you are putting the university in a position of da_ned if they do, da_ned if they don’t? On the one hand you argue against the police stepping in and doing anything (pepper spraying incident), then argue on the other hand they should have stepped in and done something (bank blockage). You cannot have it both ways. “
In both cases I’m advocating the same thing – an appropriate level of intervention. In the case of the quad it was too much. In the case of the bank blocking too little. I’m suspecting there is something between pepper spraying and doing nothing that would constitute an appropriate level.
“At what point does “breaking a minor law” become a big problem “
Breaking a minor law should never, if handled appropriately, become a big problem.
[quote]@JustSaying: There is no law against students camping overnight on UCD property. There is a university policy against it, but no laws against it.”[/quote]When the police instruct the campers to leave, the first law being broken becomes trespassing. It can get worse from that point depending how the demonstrators behave. A regulation or reasonable policy about camping on campus can turn into a broken law. I guess that suggests that [u]you[/u] are the troller as well as a crank.
“When the police instruct the campers to leave, the first law being broken becomes trespassing.”
I really suggest you either look things up or re-read the report before you state things like this. No, it is not trespassing.
If the police had a valid legal reason to demand they leave in the middle of the day and they did not, it would be failure to disperse, one of the charges that they were arrested under. They also had unlawful camping which would be a non-arrestable offense and possible unlawful assembly.
@JustSaying: Sorry, you don’t know the facts. Not only was it legal for the protesters to stay after the dispersal order, because the dispersal order had no legal basis, but it would have also been legal for the protesters to defend themselves against an illegal police action, which they refrained from doing. It was actually the protesters who behaved rationally and honorably and with judicious restraint, not the police.
The reason you are calling me names is because I made a logical and impassioned argument for Katehi’s removal, to which you have no reasonable counterargument. Sorry, you can’t get away with that here. Not in this context.
This AP article just in…
[quote]In a move aimed at cutting costs, the University of California will open a new service center in Riverside that will handle administrative duties for its 10 campuses and five medical centers, school officials said Thursday.
The facility is expected to save as much as $100 million annually by creating a single payroll and human resources system for all UC institutions, administrators said.
The shared center is a key part of UC’s “Working Smarter Initiative,” which was launched to save money in response to steep reductions in state funding over the past few years.
UC President Mark Yudof said the university is “using the power of technology and of centralized services to streamline our costs and to give taxpayers the best possible return on investment.”
The new facility will open in July 2013 with about 150 workers serving five locations. It’s expected to employ as many as 600 workers when all UC institutions have switched to the new system in October 2014.
Some UC employees will lose their jobs, but campuses hope to minimize layoffs through attrition, retraining and altering job responsibilities, said UC Executive Vice President Nathan Brostrom. Officials are encouraging current employees to apply for jobs in Riverside.
UC Riverside was chosen from six campuses that applied to host the center. Land values, availability of local talent, proximity to transportation hubs and cost of living in the city of 300,000 played a role in the decision, officials said. The center’s exact location has not been finalized.
Officials in the Southern California region known as the Inland Empire said they were delighted that UC plans to create hundreds of high-quality jobs in Riverside.
“This is the type of economic development that will have a broad and lasting positive impact on the Inland region,” said Riverside County Supervisor Bob Buster.[/quote]
Yipee! So why did this take so damn long? Any private-sector business would have done this long ago.
Kids, you just don’t get it. Stop crying about the 1% and start looking at the facts. The facts are that your tuition is skyrocketing because many of the very people enjoying or planning their retirement at expensive places like University Retirement Community have achieved their level of financial means at the expense of your affordable education. They have done so while also failing to streamline university instruction and operations to provide you better education value. You are getting a lower quality product for a much higher cost, and the people responsible are making a lot of coin. Ask yourself, what else they are currently NOT doing to help make your education more affordable.
I am jumping in a bit late so I am responding to the arguments/discussion several pages of comments back about how it is all the students fault for doing anything that may have been illegal (which has not been established). 91 Octane, do you believe in a measured proportional response to a wrongdoing, or if your child does something wrong do you believe that you just pepper spray the kid for example, as a good punishment. I find your stance out of proportion to the crime, if there even was a crime. And that just happens to be the same conclusion as the Kroll report.
“The reason you are calling me names is because I made a logical and impassioned argument for Katehi’s removal, to which you have no reasonable counterargument. Sorry, you can’t get away with that here. Not in this context.”
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, Grad Student, I’d never, ever call you a name. Impassioned pleas with any opinions are great, as far as I’m concerned. I respect your opinion about whether Chancellor should be fired, just like I figure respect my opinion that she shouldn’t–backed on the same set of facts, I think.
I disagree with with you, crank and David about ond fact, whether a trespass violation can happen on public property, whether UCD can enforce its regulations and policies and refusal to comply can become an arrestable offense. Whether that happened in this case still is an open question, in my opinion.
No reason for people to get all testy about this discussion. With respect to name-calling, I simply was returning to crank (the person, not a name-calling name) his own property.
So, Jeff, Katehi and other administrators are moving guickly to take care of Mr. Meyer and a few others who also failed during this episode.
You were quoting me, not him.
Your quote was the better written illustration of the same point of disagreement. I was responding to crank by name, but I now see how how you could have thought that I might have been calling you not just one, but two, nasty names. I’m sorry.
Grad Student – First of all, the comparison to Kent State is in poor state. I once smashed my ankle on campus, in a street hazard situation that was largely the university’s fault, and I can assure you that I would much rather have been pepper sprayed. But I didn’t sue, I only took worker’s comp, and I’m not going to compare what happened to me to a fatal shooting, much less, compare pepper spray to a fatal shooting. I agree with almost everyone else that the use of pepper spray was inexcusable, but the issue does not benefit from wild exaggerations.
Second, it is a matter of coping with protesters, because these protesters generally haven’t been satisfied with just free speech. They wanted then and still want something that they can call free speech that provokes a reaction. That really is tricky as university policy. To say that UC Davis has “the worst possible atmosphere” for free speech — get real. Nathan Brown had his own float on Picnic Day with a message that was completely equivalent to the protests on the quad. Since he confined his activities to clear-cut free speech, the “atmosphere” for it was just fine, except for the fact interest in his message was limited.
Meanwhile the Davis Vanguard argues that it was yet another stroke of incompetence that the university didn’t arrest the bank protesters and then let them go with no charges. That’s a case in point. Yes, we all have the right to free speech. No one has the right to be arrested just to be arrested. It’s also unprofessional for the police to arrest people just to arrest people. It’s true that this has become something of a ritual in certain jurisdictions, that protesters want to be arrested in imitation of Martin Luther King and the police oblige them. The university made the highly defensible decision that it’s a pointless charade. That’s an example of coping with protesters.
Crank is not a troll. Anyone who is paying close attention knows who that is since his pseudonym is only a gossamer thin veil.
Again, if you’re trying to get into the details of this, you need to do your homework. Read the reports and the other blogs, etc. This is very, very serious stuff. OK?
91 Octane, do you believe in a measured proportional response to a wrongdoing, or if your child does something wrong do you believe that you just pepper spray the kid for example, as a good punishment. I find your stance out of proportion to the crime, if there even was a crime. And that just happens to be the same conclusion as the Kroll report.
of course I believe in proportional response to wrongdoing. expelling the banker’s dozen would suit me just fine.
btw: the kroll report put a set facts on the table, but its conclusions are subjective, and I do not agree with some of them.
“The yahoos who think the protesters deserved to be pepper sprayed on Nov. 18 are part of a tiny fringe of grossly misguided people, in this case. “
You need to get around more. There are lots of people that feel this way. They understand that the cops are not perfect but they are far better than the people who would run the world if there were no cops. They understand that cops are human and if you disrespect them chanting F..k the police and end up getting pepper sprayed well that is just how it goes.
Is that right? Obviously not. Cops are supposed to be dispassionate and we can see what happens when they abuse their authority like Pike in broad daylight in front of 100 cameras. There are consequences. Still if you think that there are not lots of people who have little sympathy for the chanters yet lots of sympathy for the cops you fail to understand the world in which we live. Being dismissive of people who feel this way as yahoos is foolish. I have some news for you they are everywhere. They believe in the rule of law and if called on it understand that the chips sometimes fall in bad places but they also know that the cops are out there doing their best to protect them and their families in their homes and their property. Cops are much more popular than you think.
“btw: the kroll report put a set facts on the table, but its conclusions are subjective, and I do not agree with some of them.”
The conclusions of veteran trained police officers who actually read statements, interviewed witnesses, and reviewed the evidence or an anonymous internet poster? That’s a close call.
“What is it that you want her to say? Don’t actions speak louder than words? “
What I would have liked her to do is to provide a self analysis of what errors she believes she made in a comprehensive list, and how she intends to rectify each one in the future. This would constitute a combination of words and actions which would speak louder than either alone. A similar analysis should be expected from each and everyone of the participants in this fiasco including the student and professor protesters. The self analysis and action plans you be broadened to include the “leadership team” and all agencies with whom they interacted including the police and their legal council. Only by examing the whole situation and assessing how each party could have acted differently will real lasting change be made in how these situations can be handled optimally and peacefully in the future.
[quote]grad student: The yahoos who think the protesters deserved to be pepper sprayed on Nov. 18 are part of a tiny fringe of grossly misguided people, in this case. They wouldn’t be smart enough to cajole a newspaper carrier into throwing the paper onto dry pavement, let alone influence important legislation.[/quote]
How do you know how many there are? You might be surprised how many citizens and students are not particularly sympathetic to the students. And are they not very much a part of the “court of public opinion”? Or does the “court of public opinion” only include those who agree with your viewpoint?
[quote]Mr. Toad: You need to get around more. There are lots of people that feel this way. They understand that the cops are not perfect but they are far better than the people who would run the world if there were no cops. They understand that cops are human and if you disrespect them chanting F..k the police and end up getting pepper sprayed well that is just how it goes.
Is that right? Obviously not. Cops are supposed to be dispassionate and we can see what happens when they abuse their authority like Pike in broad daylight in front of 100 cameras. There are consequences. Still if you think that there are not lots of people who have little sympathy for the chanters yet lots of sympathy for the cops you fail to understand the world in which we live. Being dismissive of people who feel this way as yahoos is foolish. I have some news for you they are everywhere. They believe in the rule of law and if called on it understand that the chips sometimes fall in bad places but they also know that the cops are out there doing their best to protect them and their families in their homes and their property. Cops are much more popular than you think.[/quote]
Well said!
Elaine
Addressing your comment about the student protesters should not be getting a “free pass”, I do not believe that being pepper sprayed constitutes “getting a free pass”. You and I seem to agree that the spraying should not have occurred, but it seems to me that you, and others seem to trivialize this. It would be much harder to trivialize if one of these students were an asthmatic and had asphyxiated. This is not an improbability especially knowing that a concentration not intended for direct individual application was applied from a shorter range than is recommended for this device. From the medical point of view, the officers who used the pepper spray are lucky that they do not have an unintended death on their consciences.
[quote]dmg: In both cases I’m advocating the same thing – an appropriate level of intervention. In the case of the quad it was too much. In the case of the bank blocking too little. I’m suspecting there is something between pepper spraying and doing nothing that would constitute an appropriate level.[/quote]
But even you cannot seem to define “an appropriate level of intervention”…
[quote]dmg: Breaking a minor law should never, if handled appropriately, become a big problem.[/quote]
But oftentimes the breaking of a minor law becomes a big problem, no matter what one does. For example, blocking the bank branch. You see that as minor, and seem to be advocating that the university should have “done something”. If I remember correctly you wanted the police to arrest the demonstrators, turn them over to the DA, who would then release them unharmed and uncharged. Then repeat the process ad nauseum. However, as we know, when the police removed a protestor, supposedly a protestor suffered permanent nerve damage. See the problem? No matter what the powers that be do, the protestors will find a way to make sure the powers that be are found in the wrong. Any time confrontation is invited, there is always a risk of physical harm…
[quote]grad student: @JustSaying: Sorry, you don’t know the facts. Not only was it legal for the protesters to stay after the dispersal order, because the dispersal order had no legal basis, but it would have also been legal for the protesters to defend themselves against an illegal police action, which they refrained from doing. It was actually the protesters who behaved rationally and honorably and with judicious restraint, not the police.[/quote]
[quote]We don’t know that from the Reynoso report. There was no absolute conclusion on the legal issues in so far as I am aware…[/quote]
[quote]medwoman: What I would have liked her to do is to provide a self analysis of what errors she believes she made in a comprehensive list, and how she intends to rectify each one in the future. This would constitute a combination of words and actions which would speak louder than either alone. A similar analysis should be expected from each and everyone of the participants in this fiasco including the student and professor protesters. The self analysis and action plans you be broadened to include the “leadership team” and all agencies with whom they interacted including the police and their legal council. Only by examing the whole situation and assessing how each party could have acted differently will real lasting change be made in how these situations can be handled optimally and peacefully in the future.[/quote]
But isn’t that essentially what the Kroll report and the Reynoso report did? It laid out exactly where the mistakes were made, and what needed to be done to rectify them. Now let’s see if that is what happens…
ERM said: “What we don’t know is to what extent Spicuzza was permitted to do her job. Remember the police wanted to go in at 3 am, but were overruled by Katehi?”
Elaine,from what I understood from the Kroll Report, Katehi did push for the 3 a.m. time, but there weren’t any real objections to that time. While the Kroll Report said that it was a tactical decision that should have been made by the police, it is up to Spicuzza and the police to inform Katehi that it is a tactical decision and why it should have been at a different time. When Spicuzza heard from her Lieutenants that they believed that the 3 p.m. time was bad for tactical reasons, Spicuzza failed to relay that information to Katehi, so again, Katehi was unaware that her decision was a tactical one with which the police strongly disagreed. If Katehi had been told this and why, she would have at least been provided with the information and perhaps she would have made a different decision or would have allowed the police to make that decision. I can’t blame her for that decision when her subordinates did not properly inform her of their concerns.
Greg: I agree that people tend to put themselves in the best light possible, and it is possible that Castro’s recounting of the events may be just that. But I was trying to describe what I saw as being the greatest likely possible exposure that Katehi might have for her decisions that lead up to the November 18th incident. Also, I would have thought that the Kroll report would have been likely to uncover recollections to the contrary of what Castro had to say if there were any, so the lack of it to date from any source tends to give credence to Castro’s version of the story which no one has contested to date.
I still tend to think that Katehi and the Leadership Team were trying to do the right thing and were trying to be conservative in having the tents removed because I believe that Katehi did not realize there would be riot gear and Katehi did not believe that force would be used. Spicuzza apparently thought the same things from what the Kroll Report recounted, but when her Lieutenants told her otherwise, she again failed to inform the Chancellor or anyone else about how the Police intended to implement a much more aggressive plan, and one where the police expected force would be necessary. I don’t think that Katehi would have sent the police in had she known any of what Spicuzza was told, but she was never given this opportunity.
What’s the harm of sending the police in to try to take down the tents and to have them backdown if they are faced with resistance, if you think there is a chance that you might be able to prevent a problem situation from developing in terms of non-affilates becoming involved in the encampment? Some have said she should have taken more time to confirm the identities of the protestors. I think a legitimate worry is that even if the current protestors were only UCD students, that outsiders might quickly and easily join-in once an encampment had been established, and it might be much more difficult to remove them once that happened.
[quote]Addressing your comment about the student protesters should not be getting a “free pass”, I do not believe that being pepper sprayed constitutes “getting a free pass”. You and I seem to agree that the spraying should not have occurred, but it seems to me that you, and others seem to trivialize this. It would be much harder to trivialize if one of these students were an asthmatic and had asphyxiated. This is not an improbability especially knowing that a concentration not intended for direct individual application was applied from a shorter range than is recommended for this device. From the medical point of view, the officers who used the pepper spray are lucky that they do not have an unintended death on their consciences.[/quote]
I DO NOT trivialize the pepper spraying. If that had been my child, I would have been infuriated. However, I would also have been angry at my offspring for being unconscionably stupid for putting themselves in harm’s way, trampling on others’ rights, and for a cause that was not necessarily justified/morally right (closing down a bank and other professed goals of the protestors). And I would have been enraged at the UCD professors who set such a bad example, that caused my child to think it was okay to block a bank and get himself/herself arrested. I would also have been steaming about a university that could not follow appropriate protocols in time of crisis.
If it appears I have been harping on some things and not others lately (my views have been quite even-handed overall), it is only because not all views have been represented, only a select few – that of the protestors. IMO the coverage on the Vanguard has been decidedly and blatantly one-sided in favor of the protestors, who were not blameless here, just as the professors who participated in the protests were not blameless. Neither was the administration, and neither were the university police blameless. To some extent the university and the university police have to be held to a higher standard under the in loco parentis doctrine, and because they are supposed to be professionals trained in how handle such things (the university police at any rate – the administration will have to follow suit).
If you get out into the community, you would be surprised how many, including students, are not particularly sympathetic to the protestors. I was quite taken aback at how many actually feel the students got exactly what they deserved…
I believe everyone needs to take a step back, cool down, and let the university do what it needs to do to make sure something like this never happens again – the 80 hours of training you mentioned. The students and at least one professor need to serve their 80 hours of community service. Spicuzza certainly suffered the consequences of this debacle, as did Meyers. What a mess, and for what good purpose? As one commenter noted, tons more money will be spent straightening the mess out, while tuition continues to rise and privatization of the university inexorably moves forward. And UCD has suffered a public relations black eye which could cause a decrease in funding coming its way, spiraling things ever downward. The protestors did not do themselves or the university any favors…
“But even you cannot seem to define “an appropriate level of intervention”..”
First you argued that there was a disconnect in my position and that I could not have it both ways. Now you are arguing my position lacks precision. It needs to lack position. My goal is not to micromanage police response, it’s to criticize points of failure.
“But oftentimes the breaking of a minor law becomes a big problem, no matter what one does. For example, blocking the bank branch. “
Your response is precisely why I added the “if handled appropriately” modifier.
“But isn’t that essentially what the Kroll report and the Reynoso report did? It laid out exactly where the mistakes were made, and what needed to be done to rectify them. Now let’s see if that is what happens…”
The problem as myself, Medwoman, the Academic Senate have all stated here is that Katehi herself needs to come forward with what she did wrong, what they did wrong, and what will happen again. To date, she has made a blanket accept full responsibility without taking any responsibility.
“I believe everyone needs to take a step back, cool down, and let the university do what it needs to do to make sure something like this never happens again – the 80 hours of training you mentioned. “
This response is in interesting contrast to why we are actually at a point where the university has come relatively clean as to what happened. Without community outrage, I think Katehi’s first answer would have stood and the only complaints would be falling on deaf ears.
You asked people to wait until the report came out, they came out. Now you want people to wait further. I don’t get that.
Elaine
Having someone else point out your errors is not the same as you acknowledging, owning them, and specifying your plan of action for dealing with them. This is the kind of proactive transparency that I think should be expected once one reaches the leadership level of a chancellor.
So far we have seen only reactive response from Katehi, and most of that not very effective with regard to this episode. She may be stellar in other job functions, but , to date her managerial skills in time of crisis and it’s aftermath seem sorely lacking. Again, just mt opinion.
The problem as myself, Medwoman, the Academic Senate have all stated here is that Katehi herself needs to come forward with what she did wrong, what they did wrong, and what will happen again. To date, she has made a blanket accept full responsibility without taking any responsibility.
tell you what… have katehi take full public responsibility for her role in the pepperspray incident, and the bankers dozen will take full responsibility for shutting down US bank and costing people their jobs. And say publicly as you put it “admit what they did wrong.” A fair trade, no?
“If you get out into the community, you would be surprised how many, including students, are not particularly sympathetic to the protestors. I was quite taken aback at how many actually feel the students got exactly what they deserved… “
Having one new grad and one current student as children, I would not be the least surprised at how many students are “not particularly sympathetic to the protesters”. I would also like to share why. Both of my kids, and many (though not all of their friends) are economically advantaged. They are not subject to the same financial pressures as are being protested. My daughter’s objection was two fold. Minor inconvenience to herself in terms of rescheduled classes and her feeling that the legislature rather than the campus would be a better venue.
The fact that my daughter is not personally affected by increasing rates, and her relative lack of empathy for their concerns in no way deligitimizes those concerns. It just means that she, like most 20 years olds now is more concerned about her personal advancement than she is with broader social issues regardless of their implications for those less fortunate than she is.
medwoman – If you’re going to raise an association between lack of sympathy and being rich, then the fact is, first, that in-state UC students with less than $80K in family income don’t pay any systemwide tuition. And second, that some of the protesters at the leading edge come from outright rich families. One of the main elements of the angry denunciations against high tuition has been to pull out the sympathy card for struggling students and just talk as if financial aid does not exist. But the fact is that there is a lot of financial aid and the only student families left to pay tuition are the rich and the middle class.
More fundamentally, the more aggressive protesters have lost all perspective and they are making UC more expensive in the name of making it cheaper. The protests are a mixture of three things: (1) complaints that are valid but hard to address; (2) stupid, counterproductive demands that are repeated over and over again to get people to listen; and (3) a campaign to inflict financial damage in retaliation for high tuition. The third category is the most unfortunate one and a good reason to bring in the DA in response to bank blockades and campus vandalism.
[quote]“But even you cannot seem to define “an appropriate level of intervention”..”
First you argued that there was a disconnect in my position and that I could not have it both ways. Now you are arguing my position lacks precision. It needs to lack position. My goal is not to micromanage police response, it’s to criticize points of failure.
“But oftentimes the breaking of a minor law becomes a big problem, no matter what one does. For example, blocking the bank branch. ”
Your response is precisely why I added the “if handled appropriately” modifier.[/quote]
Again, I will repeat, you cannot seem to define what is “appropriate”, nor do you seem to be disagreeing that you are trying to have it both ways. It is easy to criticize, much more difficult to come up with/propose reasonable solutions. That is why I argue for a step back, letting cooler heads prevail. I believe in giving the university the chance to implement policies that will balance the need for free speech against the need to run an orderly campus where no one else’s rights are trampled on when free speech is exercised. It is a delicate balancing act with no easy answers…
Why do you have confidence that the university with mainly the same people in charge as on November 18 will be able to correct the problem?
[quote]The problem as myself, Medwoman, the Academic Senate have all stated here is that Katehi herself needs to come forward with what she did wrong, what they did wrong, and what will happen again. To date, she has made a blanket accept full responsibility without taking any responsibility.[/quote]
Listen carefully to what you are saying: “she has made a blanket acceptance of full responsibility” and then contradicting yourself by saying “without taking any responsiblity”. That makes no logical sense. I’m assuming you are saying that an “I’m sorry, I will do better” isn’t enough? A groveling in public is required, where every conceivable mistake already cited in the Kroll report is enunciated, admitted to, and fully addressed?
Let’s take a basic example to explore your thesis. Suppose you have a child that does something naughty/has made a mistake. Do you: 1) expel that child from the family as a good-for-nothing? 2) ask the child to say I’m sorry, explain to them what they have done wrong and what they must do to correct their mistake, give them another chance, and trust they have learned a lesson and will not repeat the exercise? 3) Or ask the child to say I’m sorry, demand they enunciate every excruciating detail of what they did wrong in public to the world, and then expect them to spell out exactly what they will do in the future to avoid ever doing that again, in public to the world? Which method is likely to have the best results? Which method is likely to cause the child to hide any future mistakes in every way possible/breed resentment? Which method is the most humane?
“Listen carefully to what you are saying: “she has made a blanket acceptance of full responsibility” and then contradicting yourself by saying “without taking any responsiblity”. “
I’m actually not the one who said it. I was agreeing with the faculty response:
“We are particularly concerned about the failure to take responsibility in the weeks and months that followed the incident. Such a failure disables the community from moving forward and healing. To date, the Chancellor has not truly taken full responsibility for the incident on
November 18, 2011. The chancellor has on a number of occasions claimed that she has taken full responsibility for the events; however, to date she has not acknowledged the mistakes and errors of judgment that she has made as documented in Kroll and Reynoso.”
That’s directly from the academic senate report, do you agree or disagree with this statement and why.
I also find it interesting that you are essentially comparing the Chancellor of a major university to a child in your analogy.
[quote]You asked people to wait until the report came out, they came out. Now you want people to wait further. I don’t get that.[/quote]
I asked people to wait until the report came out before making judgments. I believed the university needed to be given the opportunity to do its investigation, and see if they would “do the right thing” in light of the justifiable public outrage (mine included). It was important to get all the facts before rushing to judgment. You and many others were insistent in believing no good was going to come of the report – it would be a whitewash. Your fears were completely unfounded. (By the way, have you admitted full responsibility for the rush to judgment, explained every painstaking detail of why you were wrong, and told us what policies you will put in place to make sure this never happens again? 😉 (said tongue in cheek!!!)) Now I am advising again to sit back and wait to see if the university will do what it promises – which is to institute the recommended policies delineated in its own report/investigation. I suspect the university will, and we will not see another such incident again. That is no guarantee mistakes will not be made, but my guess is any police response will be more proportional/reasonable – altho be careful what you wish for. There may be a policy afoot that does nothing, and prosecutes later…
Since you seem to have trouble with this concept, let me provide my own example.
Councilmember A, I take full responsibility for what happened in the four years under my watch. We will be balancing the budget next year, we will have an outside negotiator, and we will go through the budget line by line.
Councilmember B, I have made some errors, that I hope to avoid in the future. In particularly, it was a mistake to have given the firefighters a 36% pay increase. We relied too heavily on the housing bubble and ended up promising workers money when they retire that we did not fully fund. In the next year, we will deal with these mistake by doing …
Which councilmember took full responsibility and in fact acknowledged errors?
To put it another way, what does Katehi believe she did wrong? I have no idea. I know what Kroll and Reynoso think, I even know what you think, but I have no idea what she believes she did wrong.
Until I can get that perspective, I cannot really evaluate whether she is likely to repeat the problems. Just as Councilmember A is more difficult to evaluate than Councilmember B.
[quote]Having someone else point out your errors is not the same as you acknowledging, owning them, and specifying your plan of action for dealing with them. This is the kind of proactive transparency that I think should be expected once one reaches the leadership level of a chancellor.
So far we have seen only reactive response from Katehi, and most of that not very effective with regard to this episode. She may be stellar in other job functions, but , to date her managerial skills in time of crisis and it’s aftermath seem sorely lacking. Again, just mt opinion.[/quote]
I’m not completely in disagreement w you. Her managerial skills are lacking. Like JustSaying, I had doubts about this woman from the get go, bc of her previous problems in Illinois. I am not overly thrilled with her privatization scheme, altho I am sympathetic to the university’s dilemma with respect to lack of state funding. It is almost an intractable problem with no good solutions it would seem. I wish I had the answers, but I don’t.
That said, there were mistakes made all around. I don’t need Katehi to grovel in front of the cameras and give me every gory detail of what she did wrong. I know what she did wrong from the Kroll/Reynoso report. To some extent I think everyone needs to allow her to save a little face, so she can show some leadership qualities by working on moving forward to implement the changes that need to be made (see my example above in regard to the naughty child). Again, just my opinion, and I certainly respect your view and your need to have her better explain exactly what she did wrong. I just feel human nature being what it is, no one wants to grovel in front of cameras, telling every shameful detail of what they did wrong. Much better to let them say “I’m sorry”, then watch to make sure they do what is necessary to effect the proper change. For me, actions speak louder than words. How many politicians have you seen grovel before cameras saying all the right things, only to continue their bad behavior, just do a better job of covering it up?
The gist of this quote from the report is something that most of the actual Academic Senate can agree with: That the chancellor needs to take responsibility with documented reforms of campus policies for student protests. The tone is a different matter. The tone is that the chancellor needs to atone for her sins by reciting an itemized confession of everything that she did wrong. Although this is now an official Academic Senate report, the report was written by a special committee chaired by one of the minority of the faculty who want to fire Katehi. The Executive Council as a whole endorsed this report not because everyone on it likes the way that it’s written, but because they weren’t interested in quarreling over style.
“You and many others were insistent in believing no good was going to come of the report – it would be a whitewash. Your fears were completely unfounded.”
I did believe it would be a whitewash. In fact, I am still very surprised that it is not a whitewash. I’m hopeful that the skepticism expressed by myself and others helped to insure that it would not be a whitewash.
I disagree that my fears were unfounded. They were well founded in that in many similar situations we have seen less than forthcoming reports.
Unfounded means: “Not based on fact or sound evidence; groundless” – experience and other examples provide a factual basis for the fear. The fact that the fears did not come to pass does not constitute proof that they were “completely unfounded.”
“Now I am advising again to sit back and wait to see if the university will do what it promises – which is to institute the recommended policies delineated in its own report/investigation. I suspect the university will, and we will not see another such incident again. “
I disagree. The extent to which the university will do the right thing will largely depend on the public remaining vigilant and pushing them. It is difficult for me to imagine that the same people that committed the series of errors leading up to November 18 will be relied upon to avoid future problems. But perhaps if the public continues to push them, they will.
[quote]Having one new grad and one current student as children, I would not be the least surprised at how many students are “not particularly sympathetic to the protesters”. I would also like to share why.[/quote]
Greg Kuperberg responded to this comment nicely. Furthermore, many adults in town are not sympathetic to the protestors either. I’m not convinced this has anything to do with one’s economic status. I think it has much more to do with personal perspective…
On medwoman’s point about her economically advantaged kids not being sympathetic to the protestors cause, and Greg Kuperberg’s point that some of the protesters at the leading edge come from outright rich families… there is a perfect contradiction.
Another contradiction… well-off liberal/progressives support the student protesters for keeping higher-quality higher learning accessible to low income students. Yet these same well off liberal/progressives don’t support the type of K-12 education reforms that would prevent so much low quality and lack of access for low income students.
These contradictions makes me question the motives or sense of many supporting the occupy protestors. It seems the specific protests are just a proxy for dreams of an increasingly Democrat/liberal/socialist worldview. It appears that for them the end justifies just about any protesting means.
While the kids have a real point about the increasing costs and reduced funding of higher education, this movement really all boils down to a demonization of any entity that has more.
Let’s try this slight but profound deviation in whom and what we demonize: how about separating those that have earned their wealth by fairly exchanging value, and those that take their ever increasing wealth while providing declining value.
As we read in a recent AP story, the UC system has just recently announced a plan to consolidate campus administrative functions in a new facility in Merced. Once implemented, this change will save $100 million a year. Ask yourself why did this take so long? Ask yourself, if this idea can save half a billion dollars every five years, then what other cost saving ideas are NOT being considered?
The fact is that UC brass are sitting on a gravy-train personal wealth-generator and they can use the drop in state funding as an excuse for maintaining the status quo until they can retire at a young age and travel the world. Creating a new model of education efficiency in a world of declining public money is a difficult job. But, private industry does this stuff all the time in a world of increasing competition… perpetually. Those that do it well earn their wealth. Those that do not generally do not become wealthy from their efforts.
What the students should protest is the lack of leadership in creating a new university business model that provides them increasing value for an affordable price. The future of state funding decline was apparent more than a decade ago, and UC brass did little to strategize and prepare for it. They have failed in this area. IMO. Anger over pepper spraying and bank protest responses are just twaddle in comparison.
UC needs to shed the expectation that management should be academic-aligned. The system needs to be run with business best-practices. The students should have a say in the bonus paid to leadership based on the performance goals set. High on the list of those goals should be affordability and quality of a college education. UC leadership that does that should get a fat bonus. Otherwise their pay should be significantly diminished until they do, or they should be replaced.
[quote]It just means that she, like most 20 years olds now is more concerned about her personal advancement than she is with broader social issues regardless of their implications for those less fortunate than she is.[/quote]
Sounds like a very smart, well grounded girl. I’ll bet you are very proud of her…
Elaine and JustSaying – There is something that you ought to understand about the admissions scandal at Illinois. They had their own independent investigation with their own final report that was even harder hitting than Kroll-Reynoso. Their investigation led to the resignation of Chancellor Herman, the counterpart of Katehi at UC Davis; and the resignation of President White, the equivalent of Yudof. They didn’t think that it fits the facts for blame to spill onto Katehi, so their final report mentioned her exactly zero times.
The response from Californians who wallow in public outrage was sadly predictable: mustabeen a whitewash, she needs to come clean, she makes the mistakes of Nixon.
So what you make of it if Ralph Hexter were hired to lead Stony Brook, say, and agitators there said that the pepper spray incident makes him look bad, that he probably had some hidden method to sidestep Kroll-Reynoso, and that he needs to come clean?
@Greg (5/3/2012 5:48 pm) – You are framing my comments in a way that I didn’t intend, to suit your own pre-set polemical purposes. When I said worst possible atmosphere, I meant at the moment Pike sprayed the spray. When I said Kent state level stuff, I’m talking about societal importance and influence.
Grad Student – You have a fair argument that those 60 seconds or so that Pike sprayed pepper spray were a terrible atmosphere for free speech. But we’re now living through the other 21,000 minutes of the year and that’s completely different.
As for Kent State, we have to start with the events themselves: After firing numerous tear gas canisters, some of which were hurled back by protesters, the National Guard fired 67 rounds into the crowd, shooting 13 students and killing 4 of them. That was two days after a crowd of 1,000 protesters burned the ROTC building and threw rocks at firefighters and policemen who were there to save the building.
Setting aside the differences between the specific events, the social influence of the Kent State shootings (according to Wikipedia) was that 4 million students went on strike and temporarily closed hundreds of universities, colleges, and high schools. Pepper spray day made a dramatic impression in certain quarters, but it is not remotely Kent State level stuff. You might as well compare it to Pearl Harbor.
Elaine
You say wait for the University and Katehi to show how they may have changed.
I maintain how the bank protest was handled can be analyzed for how her leadership effectiveness has changed (or not). I would imagine the Chancellor had some role in that and it is also a mess, tho a different mess. 0 for 2?
Elaine
“Let’s take a basic example to explore your thesis. Suppose you have a child that does something naughty/has made a mistake. Do you: 1) expel that child from the family as a good-for-nothing? 2) ask the child to say I’m sorry, explain to them what they have done wrong and what they must do to correct their mistake, give them another chance, and trust they have learned a lesson and will not repeat the exercise? 3) Or ask the child to say I’m sorry, demand they enunciate every excruciating detail of what they did wrong in public to the world, and then expect them to spell out exactly what they will do in the future to avoid ever doing that again, in public to the world? Which method is likely to have the best results? Which method is likely to cause the child to hide any future mistakes in every way possible/breed resentment? Which method is the most humane?”
Sorry Elaine, but I cannot buy the analogy. It is appropriate for a child to need instruction in why what they did was wrong. It is not appropriate for an individual in the Chancellor’s position not to be able to do this self assessment on her own. But more fundamentally, I think the way we frame the context of a public apology is probably the basis for our disagreement. You have repeatedly called making a public statement ” groveling”..
I do not see it that way at all. To me, it is part of the responsibility of a leader to be open both with regard to accomplishments but also with regard to shortcomings. For me there is no shame in admitting error. There is shame in not owning one’s own errors. The chancellor is not a child to be shielded but rather a person who has chosen and benefitted financially and personally from holding a very public position. She and she alone is responsible for her actions. I feel that a strong leader is one who is willing to admit to their shortcoming with as much openness as they bring to publicizing their successes.
As for the best method to cause children or adults to not feel the need to hide their mistakes, we have direct evidence for what works best from changes in the medical field. The usual practice was that individuals used to try to hide their mistakes not only because of potential lawsuits, but just as importantly because of a culture of public shaming. More recently, we have undergone a major culture shift in which poor outcomes, or near misses, are debriefed from a systems point of view. There is no finger pointing and shaming, but rather an assessment of what could have been done better at each step of the process. When leaders ( in this case doctors) publicly bring up what they themselves could have done better, they find they have the support of their peers who are often just grateful that this had not happened to them. This in turn empowers other members of the team to step up, analyze and share how they might do things differently in the future.
Jeff
“On medwoman’s point about her economically advantaged kids not being sympathetic to the protestors cause, and Greg Kuperberg’s point that some of the protesters at the leading edge come from outright rich families… there is a perfect contradiction.
Another contradiction… well-off liberal/progressives support the student protesters for keeping higher-quality higher learning accessible to low income students. Yet these same well off liberal/progressives don’t support the type of K-12 education reforms that would prevent so much low quality and lack of access for low income students.
These contradictions makes me question the motives or sense of many supporting the occupy protestors. It seems the specific protests are just a proxy for dreams of an increasingly Democrat/liberal/socialist worldview. It appears that for them the end justifies just about any protesting means. “
I see no contradiction here at all. Just because one is economically similar certainly does not mean that one will see social issues in the same way. Many of my peers, presumably having similar wealth, are extremely conservative politically. I obviously am not. This would only be a contradiction if you assume that students of the same economic background will have similar points of view.
Elaine
“Sounds like a very smart, well grounded girl. I’ll bet you are very proud of her.”
I am proud of her. I would also be proud of her if her carefully considered beliefs led her to feel that the current situation represented enough injustice that she felt the need to protest peacefully.
[quote]“Elaine and JustSaying – There is something that you ought to understand about the admissions scandal at Illinois.”[/quote]All I know is what I read in the [i]Vanguard[/i], supplemented by a few Google searches of news reports. As I remember the discussion, some of us thought that it didn’t seem that this could have been going on without Katehi’s knowing about the practice. But, if it did, then she [u]should[/u] have known about it and, therefore, was wanting.
We could have been wrong, of course. But it would have been nice if she’d proved us wrong by grabbing Pike’s arm when pulled out the non-approved pepper spray.