With family ties to the University of Missouri, I followed the protests that led to the downfall of the chancellor and university president rather closely. A lot of people in the wake were left to wonder how an administration could mishandle student protests and their root cause so badly that it would bring down the upper brass of a major university.
In February, when hundreds of black students protested a hate attack on the UCD campus, it seemed that the administration was on solid footing. They acted quickly and adeptly to defuse a potential bombshell. It seemed that a crisis was averted. But it was only temporary. The damage this time was self-inflicted by the chancellor.
The campus is clearly split on the issue of Chancellor Linda Katehi and her short list of transgressions, but a much deeper list of baggage is exemplified in the article Indicting Katehi by former ASUCD Senator Roman Rivilis.
Some of the pushback has focused on the protesters who have held the fifth floor of Mrak Hall for more than three weeks. A letter from students notes, “Some of us agree with the broader issues of the protesters like greater transparency and more dialogue between the students and campus administration. But we write to strongly condemn the tactics of the protesters…”
There are indeed some legitimate complaints here, and I was personally troubled by some of what I saw a few weeks back when I met with the protesters early on in the process. I chalked most of it up to lack of experience in handling the media and conducting a protest. We are still talking about young students and, unfortunately, even the best run protests need to crack a few eggs in order to be effective.
From my standpoint, they have been much more effective than anyone is giving them credit. At the forefront of their effectiveness is the fact that they have stuck with it for three weeks plus now. While other students are focused on their school work, these students are risking internal discipline and their futures for their principles.
While it is true that their numerical numbers remain small, the rally on Friday shows it has legs. Other groups have come forward, with support from faculty (mostly liberal arts faculty), to the ASUCD Senate, to labor groups, to alumni.
There has also been a strong counter push, as faculty and some students, most of them in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields, have sided with the chancellor. As some have noted however, there are some very notable names that came forward in 2011 to side with the chancellor, who are not doing so now.
On Friday, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter sent out a communication to the faculty to “update” them on what happened.
He writes, “As you may know, about 150 protesters marched from Memorial Union to Mrak Hall today shortly before noon and held a rally on the building’s steps.” For comparison, the Bee’s covered suggested there were about 250 people out in front of Mrak.
He continued, “While the event had been advertised as a ‘press conference,’ the purpose of the rally was to express solidarity with the protesters who have been occupying the reception area outside the Chancellor’s office on the 5th floor.”
He writes, “After the rally, at the urging of speakers who addressed the crowd, many of the participants came into Mrak Hall, not only the first-floor lobby but all the upper floors, disturbing Mrak staff who were working by pounding on doors and walls and shouting loudly. Fortunately, there was only a short period of time when there were large numbers of protesters on the upper floors.
“More troubling, however, many of the protesters left extensive chalk graffiti throughout the building’s stairwells, on office doors, in Mrak corridors, in bathrooms, and on the building’s exterior walls and on the sidewalks. Later in the afternoon, a smaller number of protesters took it upon themselves to do their best to erase the earlier chalking on the interior of the building.
“As of 5 p.m., several dozen protesters remained in the reception area on the 5th floor and in the building lobby on the ground level. As on previous days, Student Affairs staff will monitor those who remain in the building after it is closed after the end of the business day.”
Once again, he says, “Chancellor Katehi has said repeatedly since the protests began that she would be willing to meet with the protesters to listen to their concerns and answer questions if the meeting could take place in an orderly and respectful fashion. So far, the protesters have not taken her up on this offer.”
However, for me, the more troubling aspect is that we are finally starting to get a glimpse of the underlying culture at UC Davis. Without the student protests, these voices that are starting to trickle forward in terms of anonymous emails, phone calls, and posts would have no voice and little attention.
For those who wonder why the Vanguard has always defended anonymous posts, it is precisely because there are situations where people would risk their professional careers or personal safety in order to bring out this information.
Yesterday we had two interesting posts that should be highlighted:
I am a faculty member from Engineering. People in my direct chain of command have sided with Katehi very vocally in the press (Davis Enterprise, Sacramento Bee). There are actually people in different Engineering departments who have been hand-picked hires by Katehi, and may report back to her: a short list includes her own husband, Spyros Tseregounis, a lecturer with security of employment, teaching Engineering in Ethics (ENG 190); Subhash Mahajan, a member of the National Academy of Engineers (NAE) hired at the age of 78 years ago, who is in Chemical Engineering and Materials Science and just received a retention package of $1.5 millions; Jerry Woodall, another NAE member, in Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE), who was hired against the vote of the ECE faculty. These people attend faculty meetings on a regular basis.
I am pretty much bullied into silence, my husband and I both work at UCD and we have two children. I have to be very careful with taking risks to my career.
I received the email about signing the letter in support of Katehi, and refused to sign it, I but did not have the courage to sign the letter against Katehi. Fortunately, some of my colleagues did. It is possible that they are not as intimidated, because they are not directly exposed to Katehi’s nepotism and do not have hand-picked Katehi’s cronies/relatives sitting two chairs down from them in their faculty meetings.
The climate on campus is toxic, and that is another consequence of Katehi’s stewardship.
The second:
As another UCD STEM faculty member, I completely concur with UCD_stemfaculty. There is a cohort of STEM faculty beholden to Katehi for all sorts of behind-the-scenes special deals and favors: doing little or no teaching, arbitrary over-turning of unfavorable promotion decisions, being appointed to Chancellor’s “special adviser” positions (including her husband), etc. The flip side to this is that faculty who are genuinely concerned about her poor judgement and ethical standards are afraid to speak up, for fear of punitive repercussions. I have been at UCD for many years, and am appalled at the inexorable erosion of transparency, fairness, collegiality, and dedication to scholarship and classroom education that the Katehi administration has inculcated. Through “leadership by example” she has caused the cancer of rampant greed and selfishness to infiltrate the faculty ranks.
Perhaps it is true, as another anonymous poster put it, “The mounting scandal surrounding Katehi is large enough that a dozen screeching manbuns with nose piercings are not necessary to maintain the momentum. Her indiscretions have caught the attention of lawmakers. In fact, that’s where the scandal broke in the first place. It’s at THAT level that this ought to proceed. Abiding these adult babies sets a precedent that I am not comfortable with.”
However, I would argue that, despite the early statements by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, without the continued pressure of the protests, this episode would have long since been put to bed. President Napolitano has said as much. Now as the space has been established for more to come out, it is not so clear.
What is clear is if people are willing to step forward and bear witness to what they see occurring, there is a chance to effect change.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
So who’s stepping forward, anonymous posters?
Whether it is 150 or 250 participating in the march neither number is particularly impressive with the size of the campus student population. That is the equivalent in numbers as the two largest sororities having a protest march over a beer pong rule change.
Rule of thumb – anything over 100 is a good a showing for a protest. Over 250 is very good. Over 500 is huge. Over 1000 is amazing. The biggest protest I have ever covered was following the pepper spray where the entire half of the MU Quad was completely covered in people. That was at least 5000 people. I have never seen anything like that before or since. 250 is generally a pretty good showing.
Says you who is an advocate for these kinds of protests. I think it’s just the usual troublemakers and in no way is it a representation of the school populace.
150 is a very weak showing.
Yes, they have opened up the troubling findings that only liberal arts students and faculty tend to protest. I think I will protest that.
You and 99 of your closest friends?
I find the entire conversation so far troubling. We are quibbling over the number of protestors present and how many is significant, while totally blowing off the issue of the highly questionable practices of the Chancellor in placing her financial overachievement above the needs of the students of a public university. The same cast of characters that was up in arms about excessive compensation to our firefighters payed for by our taxes, now seems completely oblivious to the fact that it is our taxes that allow the Chancellor to not only have an extremely high taxpayer backed compensation, but to use that position to further enrich herself and her family.
So once again, it would seem that the richer one is, the more help from the taxpayers they deserve in order to maintain their privileged position. Yes, let’s definitely blame the students for the minor disruptions they are causing while winking at the egregious expenses caused by the self serving actions by those at the top of the administrative structure of our public universities.
Good point, because everyone under the blanket WANTS to the be the person who is overcompensated and revered for their “accomplishments”. But after decades of seeing behind the curtain, and asking questions about perceived corruption, There becomes an element of fear associated with just asking questions.
You don’t who is listening.
Here is my perspective on this.
If you are a private business owner or someone in private industry, you are working with private capital at risk. You are also really powerless over government except for what political influence you can muster and maybe your legal representation (although good luck suing the government). Government oversees all private business, but there is no entity overseeing government… except the media and the voters (more about that later).
So it is reasonable that private business lobby politicians and or government agencies to serve their business interest. It is no different than activist groups doing the same. The problem is when the politicians or government agencies bend to the will of these influences outside of their responsibility to serve the greater good.
But leaders and employees of government business should be mission focused. They have risk-subsidized roles. They have none of their capital at risk. They are not held accountable for running the business into insolvency. No government employee should have compensation above what any comparable role in the private sector makes… in fact it should be a bit less given the former points.
This issue with Katehi is not some alarming new thing. This kind of thing is happening at all levels in all branches of government. Especially in places like California where liberal Democrats run the show and the media has gone hard left. Nobody is watching government employees and so they are looting and filling their pockets and the pockets of their friends and family.
But of course it is the fault of big business, rich people and CEOs. Sure.
Frankly
“But of course it is the fault of big business, rich people and CEOs. Sure.”
So is it your contention that each individual is not responsible for their own actions ? Somehow the political left forced Katehi to keep any proceeds from her affiliations for her own benefit rather than donating the compensation received as she has now partially done since the story became public ?
Sure it is her responsibility. I’m just saying that her behavior is pretty normal.
The students are watching Linda now. Bye bye Linda. And your nepostic family, too.
“They are not held accountable for running the business into insolvency. ”
I disagree. Most of the time someone is ultimately held accountable, albeit a scapegoat every once in a while.
“No government employee should have compensation above what any comparable role in the private sector makes… in fact it should be a bit less given the former points…”
Again, I respectfully disagree.
Please explain what taxpayer money went to Katehi and her outside positions?
The public university system is supported in part by our tax dollars. It is also supported in part by the tuition and fees that are provided by our in state students. Unless you can show me that none of those dollars go to the top administration of the universities, I would say that the answer to your question is self evident.
Would that be be like saying if you as a doctor took an outside part time position then all of the patients in the hospital would be paying for your outside job? I think not.
BP
“In this mornings Enterprise, there is an Op-Ed entitled “Should Chancellor Katehi resign ? No. ” The subheading is “Let’s accept her apology and move forward”. This article brings up a number of points that I believe are worth countering.
1. They point out that she “erred” in accepting a position on the board of DeVry and that she “admitted it, apologized for her mistake, and resigned from the board”. This is all true, and I would be happy to accept the apology and move on if this were an isolated episode. But it is not. I see it as a reflection of a pattern of poor judgement.
If this does not sound familiar, it should. To me it is very reminiscent of her approach to leadership at the time of the pepper spray incident. She failed to head the advice of her police department. She failed to listen to the evidence provided by her own senior staff that the protest participants were UCD students, staff and affiliates and not outside agitators bent on raping our students. She failed to consider a broad range of alternatives available to her rather than clearing the quad mid day. In all of this, she failed miserably to do what it would seem to me is her primary directive which should be to protect the students and lead and teach them by example of evidence based, well reasoned decision making.
2. They continue, a few are “casting the first stones” by demanding her resignation.
There is no one either on campus or off demanding her resignation who has even close to the same public compensation and power as does the Chancellor. Are we to believe that those who see something wrong but are not rich or powerful should not speak out ?
3. They then state correctly that her participation in private boards is an encouraged activity throughout the UC system. I agree. But that does not mean that her particular activities or her acceptance of large sums of money for her private gain are ethical. It would seem in fact, based on her subsequent actions to set up a student trust once her activities were made public, that she herself does not see those activities as ethical or perhaps just not currently sufficiently self promotional. Just because an activity is not illegal, or is widespread, does not make it ethical and does not mean that it demonstrates a use of good judgement.
4.They then state “Let’s look at the big picture instead of the pixels”. I agree. I think that we should be considering the entirety of Chancellor Katehi’s career when considering whether or not she should resign.
So let’s look at the broad picture.
She was involved in questionable admissions procedures prior to arriving at UCD. She did not accept any responsibility for her actions or awareness in that situation.
She was at the head administrator of UCD at the time of the pepper spray incident.
She is well aware of her husband’s and other family members benefitting from her position as Chancellor in terms of their own employment.
She accepted the money from her involvement with these private boards for personal gain when she could just as easily have accepted and donated those funds for the well being of the students.
They go on to criticize the tactics such as vandalism of the protestors. I agree, these activities go well beyond free speech and should not be tolerated. However, they are completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the Chancellor should resign and merely serve to distract from the author’s support of the Chancellor.
The authors give the Chancellor’s participation on these boards the credit for the successful fundraising of the university. I would say that more credit is due to the dedicated team of fund raisers ( range of approximately $ 100- 125,000 as listed on SacBee State Employee database) for the various departments and projects, all much less well compensated than is the Chancellor, than is due to the Chancellor’s very well compensated board participation.
While it is true that she has added more in state students to the campus, it is also true that under her leadership there has been a marked increase in out of state and out of country students at the expense of places for qualified in state students.
Is any of this illegal ? No. Is any of this unethical ? Debatable depending on what you consider the core responsibility of the head of a public university. Does any of this represent poor judgment ? I would argue that it represents a clear pattern of poor judgement over time involving many different types of decisions.
5. The authors make a series of arguments that I feel are irrelevant to whether or not the Chancellor should resign. They argue that firing her will not solve the broader issues facing the university administration. True but irrelevant. Removing a single unethical banker would not resolve all the issues faced by the banking industry, but that does not mean that banker should be allowed to continue in a position of responsibility.
They further state that they do not believe that the protestors represent the majority of students on campus. Highly irrelevant. Are they contending that if the majority of students did believe she should resign, that this would be binding ? I doubt it. Selection of Chancellor is clearly not done by student vote, so why should this matter at all ?
6. Finally, the authors cite the Principles of Responsibility, ” We promote open expression of our individuality and our diversity within the bounds of courtesy, sensitivity and respect. ”
It is my feeling that due to a lack of perspective and repetitive poor judgement in the performance of her primary mission, namely the education of the qualified students of California and their protection ( pepper spraying does not count as protection) while affiliated with UCD, her tenure to date has been repeatedly in breech of these principles. While I do not support her firing, since she does not appear to have done anything illegal, I strongly support her resignation due to her persistent failure to live up to the Principles of Responsibility and to perform her duties in a consistently ethical manner.
Tia,
Well written and thought provoking.
BP
“Would that be be like saying if you as a doctor took an outside part time position then all of the patients in the hospital would be paying for your outside job? I think not.”
It is nothing at all like saying that.
I have covered this before, but will do not mind repeating. In the Kaiser system, which has as a basic tenet the provision of integrated health care to our members in a collaborative practice, the provision is that we will not participate in outside practice for our own profit. If we do form outside affiliations, they are either voluntary, or the compensation earned goes to the group, not to us as individuals.
Again, I have no problem with such participation on outside boards as long as it is done for the wellbeing of the students she was hired to serve and not for her personal enrichment. I say this as a doctor who has volunteered for many activities involving student run clinics, student and resident recruiting, ARC medical translation classes to name a few. Many Kaiser physicians participate in such activities including research, and none of us do it for profit. So please explain to me why it would be wrong to anticipate that the top administrators of our public educational institutions could not adopt and follow the same model ?
Perhaps if Chancellor Katehi is truly the leader she and her supporters claim her to be, she could strongly come out in favor of a revision of the current UC policies to be more in line with those that are currently in place for Kaiser physicians and leaders. If she were to take such a stand publicly, I would be very much inclined to re evaluate her suitability as the head of a public educational institution.
Well, the UC system had no such provision. In fact, Nepalitano knew of her outside posts and agreed with them. So are you going to throw Katehi under the bus for doing something that other UC administers are doing and have done and was within the parameters of her position?
I think where she’s going to get nailed is on the secondary stuff that we don’t know about yet.
“I think where she’s going to get nailed is on the secondary stuff that we don’t know about yet.”
So let’s get this straight. What she’s being asked to leave for isn’t the real reason she will get fired, it will be something that we don’t know about yet. Okay, got it.
She’s not going to get fired for what she’s done, everyone has made that clear.
I agree that people are generally critical of Katehi on campus, but will not risk careers to openly criticize her. The concensus is that we are stuck with her in that no elite University will take her at this point. UCD as a stepping stone to a higher paid job at a more elite University has failed. She is damaged goods with controversies at her last two positions. We need a Chancellor that the students, staff and faculty trust and we don’t have that in Katehi. She should go talk to these students – every day, if she has to. We can’t have a Chancellor that is afraid to engage students and instead sends her staff to deal with it.
Her creation of cushy highly paid jobs for her family and friends is an additional upsetting aspect to this story. I wonder how many of the positions she has created or been party to creating.
I understand that the private university system (e.g., Devry) is (also) supported with tax dollars (via student financial aid, from taxpayers).
I also find the statements by UCD_stemfaculty (regarding personnel practices at the University) very concerning. Seems like another audit is needed.
In this mornings Enterprise, there is an Op-Ed entitled “Should Chancellor Katehi resign ? No. ” The subheading is “Let’s accept her apology and move forward”. This article brings up a number of points that I believe are worth countering.
1. They point out that she “erred” in accepting a position on the board of DeVry and that she “admitted it, apologized for her mistake, and resigned from the board”. This is all true, and I would be happy to accept the apology and move on if this were an isolated episode. But it is not. I see it as a reflection of a pattern of poor judgement.
If this does not sound familiar, it should. To me it is very reminiscent of her approach to leadership at the time of the pepper spray incident. She failed to head the advice of her police department. She failed to listen to the evidence provided by her own senior staff that the protest participants were UCD students, staff and affiliates and not outside agitators bent on raping our students. She failed to consider a broad range of alternatives available to her rather than clearing the quad mid day. In all of this, she failed miserably to do what it would seem to me is her primary directive which should be to protect the students and lead and teach them by example of evidence based, well reasoned decision making.
2. They continue, a few are “casting the first stones” by demanding her resignation.
There is no one either on campus or off demanding her resignation who has even close to the same public compensation and power as does the Chancellor. Are we to believe that those who see something wrong but are not rich or powerful should not speak out ?
3. They then state correctly that her participation in private boards is an encouraged activity throughout the UC system. I agree. But that does not mean that her particular activities or her acceptance of large sums of money for her private gain are ethical. It would seem in fact, based on her subsequent actions to set up a student trust once her activities were made public, that she herself does not see those activities as ethical or perhaps just not currently sufficiently self promotional. Just because an activity is not illegal, or is widespread, does not make it ethical and does not mean that it demonstrates a use of good judgement.
4.They then state “Let’s look at the big picture instead of the pixels”. I agree. I think that we should be considering the entirety of Chancellor Katehi’s career when considering whether or not she should resign.
So let’s look at the broad picture.
She was involved in questionable admissions procedures prior to arriving at UCD. She did not accept any responsibility for her actions or awareness in that situation.
She was at the head administrator of UCD at the time of the pepper spray incident.
She is well aware of her husband’s and other family members benefitting from her position as Chancellor in terms of their own employment.
She accepted the money from her involvement with these private boards for personal gain when she could just as easily have accepted and donated those funds for the well being of the students.
They go on to criticize the tactics such as vandalism of the protestors. I agree, these activities go well beyond free speech and should not be tolerated. However, they are completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the Chancellor should resign and merely serve to distract from the author’s support of the Chancellor.
The authors give the Chancellor’s participation on these boards the credit for the successful fundraising of the university. I would say that more credit is due to the dedicated team of fund raisers ( range of approximately $ 100- 125,000 as listed on SacBee State Employee database) for the various departments and projects, all much less well compensated than is the Chancellor, than is due to the Chancellor’s very well compensated board participation.
While it is true that she has added more in state students to the campus, it is also true that under her leadership there has been a marked increase in out of state and out of country students at the expense of places for qualified in state students.
Is any of this illegal ? No. Is any of this unethical ? Debatable depending on what you consider the core responsibility of the head of a public university. Does any of this represent poor judgment ? I would argue that it represents a clear pattern of poor judgement over time involving many different types of decisions.
5. The authors make a series of arguments that I feel are irrelevant to whether or not the Chancellor should resign. They argue that firing her will not solve the broader issues facing the university administration. True but irrelevant. Removing a single unethical banker would not resolve all the issues faced by the banking industry, but that does not mean that banker should be allowed to continue in a position of responsibility.
They further state that they do not believe that the protestors represent the majority of students on campus. Highly irrelevant. Are they contending that if the majority of students did believe she should resign, that this would be binding ? I doubt it. Selection of Chancellor is clearly not done by student vote, so why should this matter at all ?
6. Finally, the authors cite the Principles of Responsibility, ” We promote open expression of our individuality and our diversity within the bounds of courtesy, sensitivity and respect. ”
It is my feeling that due to a lack of perspective and repetitive poor judgement in the performance of her primary mission, namely the education of the qualified students of California and their protection ( pepper spraying does not count as protection) while affiliated with UCD, her tenure to date has been repeatedly in breech of these principles. While I do not support her firing, since she does not appear to have done anything illegal, I strongly support her resignation due to her persistent failure to live up to the Principles of Responsibility and to perform her duties in a consistently ethical manner.
BP
“So are you going to throw Katehi under the bus for doing something that other UC administers are doing and have done and was within the parameters of her position?
Absolutely not as I have said on multiple occasions. I do not believe that a single error should be cause for either firing or resignation. It is her consistent pattern of poor judgement in multiple areas that I think should be cause for her resignation. How many of her “apologies” should be accepted before either she, or someone else in power decides that she is not well suited for this particular job ?
BP
“the UC system had no such provision. In fact, Nepalitano knew of her outside posts and agreed with them.”
Two points. You are correct that the UC system has no such provision. It is my opinion that they should and that this would represent an opportunity for both Katehi and Napolitano to use these incidents to prove their leadership in public education by instituting such provisions.
On the second point, you are correct with regard to the textbook board, and incorrect with regard to DeVry which Ms. Napolitano had not approved. That is on Chancellor Katehi alone as she has admitted. I don’t know what either of them thinks about lending one’s name and professional credentials to an institute such as KAU to allow it to effectively “buy” its way to higher ranking than it would receive based on its merits…..but I certainly know what I think about it….highly unethical and should not be allowed in the future.
What the anonymous posters don’t mention is that the dept of Chem Engineering and Materials Science (which is the dept with the Chancellor’s husband and Mahajan) are getting a divorce because the faculty can’t get along. Also, just for perspective, College Deans approve “special deals” – not the Chancellor – and the Provost okays them. Come on people. If you have a real issue, either get informed and/or provide the whole context.
I think the Chancellor has made big strides and big mistakes, AND the campus has definitely progressed in terms of STEM diversity (both faculty and students), greater financial aid for CA students, and more commitment to students who are admitted.
You can’t fire someone for joining a board _you_ don’t like when their job review (i.e., the UC President and the Regents) not only encourage Chancellors to join boards but evaluate Chancellors using this criteria.
This hysteria should be replaced with protests at the state house where legislators continue to give away the UC system to international students. Where do you want your kids to be educated???
Bingo!!!
I would like to concur with the faculty member in Engineering who is afraid to speak out. I’m a full professor in biological sciences and am also not inclined to speak out because of concerns of retaliation. I also have first hand knowledge of a very large retention package ($1M) for one of the top signatories of a recent support letter in the Enterprise. Whether this was actually a retention, however, is debatable, given that a top administrator from the institution that purportedly made the offer, denied it openly. Coincidentally, this same faculty member was one of the first to write in support of Chancellor Katehi after the pepper spray incident. Coincidence? I don’t think so. The Chancellor surrounds herself with hand-picked faculty defenders that benefit greatly from her largesse. Why do only the humanities and social sciences faculty speak out? The Chancellor ignores these faculty and their interests, so what is she going to take away from them? The campus is clearly driven by science and the money behind science and this also drives the fear that the Engineering professor and I both share about speaking out.
There are online public databases that list the salaries and yearly compensation of UC employees.
Are these alleged Million-dollar retention bonuses publicly revealed, and part of these databases?
The main issue I was aware of was when she unceremoniously started looking for a replacement for the dean of the College of Ag and Environmental Sciences two years before his term ended, when the standard was a one-year search. He took that at as a sign of no confidence, so he resigned, as did his right-hand man. For a top-ranked department, that was troublesome.
Dear TrueBlueDevil,
ConcernedUCDFacultyMember won’t be able to answer this because – why? – it is not supported by any hard facts. Don’t you just love “ I also have first hand knowledge of a very large retention package ($1M) for one of the top signatories of a recent support letter in the Enterprise.”
No names. No facts that can be verified.
The UC’s need vocal and LOUD support for the legislature to step up to the plate and support it the way that it has been historically. Don’t you think it’s odd that now that the state is heading to majority-minority demographics, suddenly the legislature is cutting back on funding?
For the people who think her salary is too much – especially the repub commenters above, get real. The legislature, business, all the people who don’t want to step up to the plate and pay for the next generation of kids to attend college at a reasonable cost, have perpetually called universities to ‘run like a business.’ Come on, do you know of a multi-billion dollar industry that pays its CEO less than $500k? Because I sure don’t.
And finally, David, you run a good service with the Vanguard, but your personal opinions don’t matter and you shouldn’t be saying things like ‘secondary issues are going to get her” and if you are going to say it, get informed about what is really happening from all sides, like a decent news reporter.
Actually what I meant was if she is going to get fired it’s going to be an issue not currently on the radar because the President has already said that she is not going to get fired based on what we know to date. That is my opinion, but it seems supported by what we know to date.
“What is clear is if people are willing to step forward and bear witness to what they see occurring, there is a chance to effect change.”
Here’s one change I’d like to see effected: you take down your photos and videos of staff going into the women’s restroom in Mrak Hall on your previous commentary. If they took down the signs by the protestors unilaterally redesignating restrooms as “gender-neutral” then they were absolutely within their rights to do so. Gender-neutral restrooms have to be lockable and single-stall; these are not. The protestors are breaking the law with their redesignation, and in doing so are creating a hostile work environment for workers who want to use gender-specific restrooms. You are glorifying the hostile work environment by posting the photos/video of people going into a restroom. Would you like it if someone took photos of you going into or out of a restroom and then posting it on a website? A real class act – shame on you.
Bye bye, Linda.
shane
“Gender-neutral restrooms have to be lockable and single-stall; these are not. “
Honest question. Are you citing law, campus policy or personal preference here ?
Tia wrote:
> Honest question. Are you citing law, campus policy or personal preference here ?
Another “Honest Question” for Tia:
Do you think it is a good idea for a 12 year old girl to walk in to a room with 20 drunk men who are urinating in to a large trough (e.g. the bathroom at most sporting events)?
SOD
“Do you think it is a good idea for a 12 year old girl to walk in to a room with 20 drunk men who are urinating in to a large trough (e.g. the bathroom at most sporting events)?”
Another honest question. Do you know the meaning of “straw man argument” ? Have you ever seen anyone advocating for the above scenario ?
And I am still hearing crickets about my real world example of the young transitioning individual who is ,when fully clothed a male ( full beard, deep voice ), but with female genitals and female designation on the birth certificate. Within the context of our current labelling format, which facility should this individual choose ? How comfortable is your hypothetical 12 year old girl going to feel when this man walks into the “female only” restroom because some lawmaker says “she” must ?
Tia will answers a “straw man argument” with a “straw man argument”.
As we are discussing transgender issues here, it may not be a straw MAN.
Tia wrote:
> Do you know the meaning of “straw man argument” ?
Yes, but will you let us know why you don’t want to answer a simple question?
> Have you ever seen anyone advocating for the above scenario ?
Yes, I know many people who want to get rid of gender signs on bathrooms and replace them with something like this:
http://www.mydoorsign.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/All-Gender-Restroom-Sign.gif
> And I am still hearing crickets about my real world example of the
> young transitioning individual
Did you read any of the past posts?
Myself and others have answered this many times (I even included a link to a photo in one response to make my views clear)
Below is another link if you look like the person wearing pants use the mens room if you look like the person wearing a dress use the womens room (real simple).
http://media.mlive.com/grandrapidspress/photo/2015/05/19/fullbody-2jpg-800e0d8a1371a5bb.jpg
Transwellness.org: “Gender-neutral” bathrooms are typically a single-stall, lockable bathroom available to people of all genders and sexes. Gender-neutral bathrooms provide a safe, private facility for transgender, genderqueer, and gender non-conforming people, families with children, and people with disabilities who may need assistance. Single-stall restrooms also more easily meet the accessibility regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).”
But you’re missing my point: no one should be subjected to being filmed going in and out of a restroom, and a journalist behaving responsibly would not post photos or videos of someone doing this. It is arguably sexual harassment, it most certainly invades privacy, and has no place in a discourse about the value of gender-neutral restrooms, much less a debate about the Chancellor at UC Davis. Is anyone there considering the feelings of the women in the photos/videos who have nothing to do with the student protests, and only sought to have access to a place that they did not find threatening? I had thought better of the Vanguard than this.
I’ll second that. It’s up there with playing 9-1-1 tapes of celebrities and people in terror, for the entertainment value.
Frankly
“Sure it is her responsibility. I’m just saying that her behavior is pretty normal.”
It may be “normal”, but it is representative of self serving greed and I believe that we should expect better from the people who are supposed to be modeling superior behavior for our youth. Maybe one would see this as the height of desirable behavior at a for profit business or private university. But as the head of a public university, I believe we should be aiming for exemplary behavior, not the “norm”.