Katehi Team Highlight’s Napolitano’s “Internet Scrubbing” Campaign Hypocrisy



(From Press Release from Katehi’s Legal Team) – Tuesday morning’s revelation that the University of California President Janet Napolitano’s office mounted a $158,000 internet publicity campaign to suppress criticism of a scathing state audit shows the “utter hypocrisy” of Napolitano’s continuing investigation of UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi for exactly the same issue.

Katehi attorney Melinda Guzman called today’s news “another nail in the coffin” of the already controversial investigation by Napolitano and renewed her call that the investigation be scrapped.

 “This investigation has been compromised from the moment President Napolitano disingenuously called for fairness and independence and launched the probe by splashing it in the media,” Guzman said.  “In the ensuing weeks, it has been plagued by the revelation that Napolitano is investigating herself, that the lead investigator has a financial interest in a law firm that profits from millions in UC contracts, and the highly prejudicial information pumped out by Napolitano’s press office.”

 “Linda Katehi will never receive fair treatment under this investigation,” Guzman said.  “This morning’s astonishing revelation that Napolitano herself spent UC funds for similar so-called ‘internet scrubbing’ is further proof that the UC President does not have clean hands on this matter.”

Chancellor Katehi, who was placed on paid administrative leave April 27 by Napolitano, has been unfairly and falsely accused of backing a campaign of so-called “internet scrubbing” as part of the university’s overall marketing efforts.

And yet, as the Sacramento Bee reported Tuesday morning:

 “In the wake of a scathing state audit released in March, the University of California mounted a $158,000 publicity campaign to dispute claims that its admissions policies had disadvantaged resident students. The campaign included a report rebutting the conclusions of the audit; digital ads on websites, Facebook and Twitter; and sponsorships on public radio stations throughout the state, according to documents obtained by The Sacramento Bee.”

Later in the article, Napolitano spokesperson Dianne Klein justified the expenditure, saying:

 “Negative tends to stick in the public’s mind much more than positive news,” she said.  “Rather than let a blemish take over the whole state, so to speak, we felt it was necessary and good to get out a positive message.”

Klein is the same Napolitano spokesperson who castigated Chancellor Katehi in April for UC Davis’ expenditures for exactly the same sort of online expenditures.

Katehi spokesperson Larry Kamer asked:  “Shouldn’t someone from the UC Office of the President be placed on administrative leave because of this?”

Guzman added:  “There is only one way Chancellor Katehi will get a fair hearing that finds facts and protects her rights.  The UC Regents must step in.  They need to scrap this compromised investigation and relaunch it, hiring a truly independent fact-finder who reports directly to them.  Janet Napolitano and her people have become an irreparable liability,” she said.


About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

82 thoughts on “Katehi Team Highlight’s Napolitano’s “Internet Scrubbing” Campaign Hypocrisy”

  1. Tia Will

     has been unfairly and falsely accused of backing a campaign of so-called “internet scrubbing””

    “Unfairly” ? Probably if others are doing the same. “Falsely”?  It doesn’t sound like it from the information released.

    Sounds like a pox on both their houses to me.

    1. DavidSmith

      “falsely” refers to “internet scrubbing”. “scrubbing” means removing something. How exactly do you scrub the internet? How is it possible?

      To be fair on this issue, I don’t think the UCOP accused Chancellor Katehi of “internet scrubbing”. It’s SacBee I believe.

      1. Jerry Waszczuk


        This was very well coordinated campaign against Chancellor involving UCOP, selected reporters from  the SacBee, a few handy legislators , two former U.S  prosecutors plus the  unsuccessful provocation in UC Davis  Mrak Hall. It did not work very well for Napolitano.  Let’s wait and see .  I think that the  settlement is in motion between UC and Chancellor Katehi.

  2. SODA

    If I remember correctly from the letter, it was the Chancellor’s stated mistruths about her knowledge of the scrubbing that got her in most trouble.

    1. Jerry Waszczuk


      You are right! It clearly appears from the Napolitano’s April 27, 2016 suspension letter which was served to Chancellor Katehi  that  Napolitano did not criticize Katehi for spending money on  the scrubbing Lt. Pike’s  image from the internet .  “The issue was whether Chancellor Katehi violated the University’s Standards of Ethical Conduct” in relation to the scrubbing Lt. Pike’s images contracts. .

       “Second, there are concerns regarding whether you have made material misstatements regarding your role in the social media contracts. Despite public statements to members of the media, as well as to me, that you were not aware of or involved with these particular contracts, documents prepared in response to a Public Records Act request indicate multiple interactions with one of the vendors and efforts to set up meetings with the other. Misrepresentations made in the course and scope of employment raise concerns about whether such statements are consistent with the University’s Standards of Ethical Conduct”


  3. ryankelly

    What is the goal here?   Katehi is not being accused of running a PR campaign to communicate the good deeds and accurate information about the University.  She is being accused of hiring a company to attempt to scrubbed her error from the internet.  This investigation should have taken weeks.  Her lawyer’s press releases are getting to be annoying.

    Napalitano needs to stop the hemmoraging of money on this and fire Katehi from her position as Chancellor and assign her a teaching /research position with no extra perks.  Her supporters in the Sciences should welcome her.  Her husband’s teaching load needs to be looked at to make sure it is comparable to other faculty and he is carrying his weight in his department.  Nothing should be done with her daughter-in-law. Her employment is something we’ll have to live with. Her son seems to be innocent in all this.

    1. Jerry Waszczuk

      Napalitano needs to stop the hemmoraging of money on this and fire Katehi from her position as Chancellor and assign her a teaching /research position with no extra perks. “


      For what reason Kathei should be  fired from the Chancellor position ? For bringing to UC Davis more then  one billion dollars in funds? The  allegations outlined in the  Napolitano’s  April 2016 suspension letter are legally groundless for Chancellor’s position termination  or from any position .  The employment at will is not always  is employment at will , especially when employee is  over 40 years old , is a  woman , minority ,when ethnicity is a factor etc.

      Nobody knows yet how Haag , Scott and Guzman will play out this case and what is really being investigated by these two white collar crime very expensive attorneys hired by UCOP

      1. nameless

        I think the claim that Katehi brought in the dollars to UCD single handedly has been widely debunked – dollars were coming in because UCD is an excellent research university with outstanding faculty who go after research dollars.  Donors gave to UCD because they believe in the university, not necessarily because Katehi was its Chancellor.

        However, you make a valid point that at will employees cannot be fired based on certain factors, such as gender, ethnicity, reporting criminal activity and the like.  If Katehi can prove the university knew other male administrators engaged in the same conduct that she did but were not fired, the university may have a big problem.

        1. Jerry Waszczuk


          The fact is that no one of the UC  Davis Chancellor brought so much money in such short time to UC Davis by the  fund rising campaign. You have to assemble very good fundraising team  with the excellence in communication. It is similar to the election campaign.  The one billion in funds  is a great number of $$$.  This is also a great bargain chip or the  arguments for the Chancellor Katehi’s  legal team which is defending her. If the case  would go to court today when courts are  underfunded and struggling  with  the budget than it would be  a great argument against Napolitano who killed the “Goose That Laid The Golden Eggs” .    As I know from my own recent experiences  in the  court , judges are making short cuts because of  budget constrains and any judge would not  like what Napolitano did to Chancellor Katehi .

          In regard to Chancellor employment , her counsel Melinda Haag already pointed out  in her May 26, 2016 response letter to UC General Counsel Charles Robinson that Chancellor was singled out for prosecution and other UC executives doing same things  what Chancellor was doing including UC General Counsel Charles Robinson himself who serves on PJM Director’s Board (East Coast)

        1. Jerry Waszczuk


          The lies must be proved and this why Chancellor has legal counsel to defend her from such accusations and allegations.  Chancellor is clean . I had same thought as you have today but different is that you don’t have documents I do have to to justify my opinion.

  4. Misanthrop

    Well todays story clearly comes directly from Katehi’s team. I hope they paid you the going ad rates for this amount of space.

    Of course there are differences like Katehi trying to improve her own image instead of just that of the university and questions over who paid for Katehi’s personal public relations campaign. Then there was that part about lying to her boss about the source of the money.

    Napolitano has some answering to do about the enrollment of lower performing out of state students to generate funds for the University at the expense of in state students but this has little to do with Katehi’s failures even if UCD under Katehi was the biggest player in the scandal. Each should be evaluated on its own and we should not be distracted by these incessant rants from Katehi’s mouthpieces.

    1. Jerry Waszczuk


      I don’t know why so upset about. UC President Janeet Napolitano hired two US former prosecutors Melinda  Haag and Gregorio Scott who are taking care of business. Janet Napolitano herself is the former US Homeland Security Chief from the President Obama administration . You can not get a  better team to crucify Chancellor Katehi. Have some patience .

      The Vanguard just reprinted information from the Sacramento Bee.

      1. Misanthrop

        Why do you think I’m upset? I thought Katehi should have gone after the pepper spray and think this is only about money so if I am annoyed at all its about all the money being wasted on lawyers while they negotiate the terms of separation. If David wants to allow his scene to get used by Katehi’s lawyers like this that is his own business problem. I simply think its a pity that Guzman will bill hundreds for the press release and David won’t get any of it.

        1. Marina Kalugin

          and, you spend 24/7 here missie, and you still haven’t learned a thing…

          Chancellor Katehi was not responsible for the pepper spray, and yet you continue to try to crucify her for that?

          Lt. Pike’s head was put on a pike, and yet the who in that case was Spicuzza, remember her?   were you even here?

          she finally left, and another good ole boy was installed….

          Five years, later, if not for the union instigation….jeez…5 years and guess what, union contracts are up…again,   5 years…and so follow the money…

          let’s roll that out again and make some trouble, say the teamsters and others….

          of course, most new undergraduates were 12 back in 2011…  and one had to really work at all of this latest instigation…

          of course, some, like missy, still don’t get it?     feel free to be upset all you want…

          just don’t take down the best Chancellor in decades while you are “being upset”

        2. The Pugilist

          That’s not what Kroll and Cruz Reynoso’s task force concluded.  Both of those reports on the pepper spray put a significant amount of the responsibility on the chancellor for creating the conditions that allowed the pepper spray to occur.

        3. Jerry Waszczuk


          It was no reason for Chancellor to  be fired  after pepper spray . Chancellor has nothing to do with pepper spray  in November 2011 with exception that she was a new UC Davis Chancellor and  pepper spray was orchestrated by UC Davis Campus Counsel Steven Drown  , UC General Counsel  Charles Robinson , UCDMC HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott , present UC Davis UCDPD Chief Matt Carmichael and few others to fire   Chief Spicuzza ,  Cpt Souza , Lt Pike himself and Chancellor Katehi and myself. I survived until December 2012 .  Chancellor survived until April 27, 2016.

          UCOP is being represented in the court in two cases today against myself by the same law firm which represented Chancellor Katehi in 2011-2012 after pepper spray   in the federal court approved settlement  and everything  indicates that these lawyers who represented Chancellor in 2011-2012  were part of the UC Davis Counsel Steven Drown team which instructed Lt. Pike to  pepper spray protesters. FBI has all documents . Let see what will happen if anything .



        4. ryankelly

          Marina and Jerry, Katehi gave the order to send in the police during the day to remove students from the quad. It was found that at that time they were not violating any laws or University rules. She certainly has responsibility for the outcome.

        5. Jerry Waszczuk


          The  former Justice Reynoso in 2011-2012 had no any clue  who was behind  the November 18, 2011 pepper spray.  He knows now . He is very well informed. If  the Speaker of the Assembly John Perez  would not interfere in 2011 aftermath pepper spray than Chancellor Katehi would be gone together with Pike and Spicuzza.  Everthing was settled so quickly  and UC Davis  Mascot , the Lt. Pike  was brought to life  again by UC President Janet Napolitano .

        6. DavidSmith

          The public deserves to hear voices from both sides. So far David has been very good at covering both sides and he presented everything based on tractable information sources. You can disagree with some of the posts here but calling out David like that is unfounded and unacceptable.

        7. Misanthrop

          David is under no obligation to put this nonsense from Katehi’s legal team up on his site. If he wants to do so that is his choice. He makes bad choices all the time this is just one more instance of him doing so.

          Katehi was a disaster who was responsible for pepper being sprayed on students(whatever excuse you want to make it happened on her watch as the head of the UCD campus so she is responsible) divided the UCD faculty and community, served on a board that works tirelessly to keep science text book prices high and ended up with an unprecedented number of legislators calling for her to be fired. I don’t think even Clark Kerr caused as many members of the legislature to call for his firing.

        8. DavidSmith

          David is not obligated to do anything on this site. He could shut down DV and nobody will see your post. You didn’t complain when David covered initial public criticism of the Chancellor? We should treasure the opportunity that David has provided us to all voice our opinions. No need for such hate just because David writes something that is not to your taste.

          Katehi was a disaster who was responsible for pepper being sprayed on students(whatever excuse you want to make it happened on her watch as the head of the UCD campus so she is responsible) divided the UCD faculty and community, served on a board that works tirelessly to keep science text book prices high and ended up with an unprecedented number of legislators calling for her to be fired.

          These are your personal rants and I find them lack of any meaningful substantiation. I don’t expect to convince you by laying down facts and argument because you obviously have let your emotion take over, but here is what I think.

          1. There is no real divide. There will be people having drastically different opinions on any issue. When you look at the recent Academic Senate resolutions, you will readily find that there is overwhelming support of Chancellor Katehi among the faculty. You can contact UCD Academic Senate for more information if you don’t believe me, but I doubt you have the interest in doing that.

          2. Price of textbooks, as much as we hate high prices, is a complicated issue. There are many factors and a lot of it boils down to economy of scale. College textbooks have a very small market but very high production cost and a very stiff demand. Publishers’ greed is an important factor, but not everything.

          3. “Unprecedented” compared to what?


        9. Misanthrop

          “There is no real divide”

          I’ve wondered what a no confidence vote would have looked like for a long time. You talk about the faculty while I was speaking about the community. If you think Katehi didn’t divide this community you haven’t been paying attention. Simply review the letters section of the Davis Enterprise during the Mrak sit-in and you will see an ample sampling of the discord that occurred in this community under Katehi.

          “Price of textbooks, as much as we hate high prices, is a complicated issue.”

          Not all that complicated. While Katehi was sitting on the Wiley Board the company lost at the US Supreme Court in its efforts to use copyright law in order to keep cheaper textbooks out of the hands of students.

          Katehi seemed to love high prices. Loved students who could pay high out of state tuition, even favored them over more qualified in state applicants. She served on an outside board whose efforts to keep textbook prices high, particularly for the students in the sciences that she was supposed to be so great for, that seems to this ranter of unsubstantiated claims, as you describe me, to be a direct conflict of interest with her high and well paid position of public service. She took a position on another board, De Vry, a for profit college that milked the Federal Financial Aide system and left its students deeply indebted. Finally on this point lets invert, Katehi detested those who spoke out against all the profligacy that occurred on her watch. That is why she disregarded all the advice she received telling her to not try to remove the students from the quad in broad daylight. She wanted those protesting higher tuition to know who was running the show and sent Spicuzza and Pike out there to do the dirty work.

          “Unprecedented, compared to what.”

          Well at least since Hayakawa ran S.F. State.

          Yes Marina, I have been around.


        10. DavidSmith

          Great. Now a new fault for the Chancellor, dividing the community. And I need to go to DE letters section to see that. Should I go to SacBee to see more hateful comments? Did the Chancellor also divide the capitol? the state? the nation? Should we let DE letter writers run the university? Should we let ranters like you teach our students?

          Did you know the no-confidence vote failed and the confidence vote prevailed? What about the recent AS resolutions almost unanimously supporting the Chancellor that you know nothing about and didn’t care to find out (just like I predicted)?

        11. Misanthrop

          I want to clarify that I should have said Katehi divided the university community. So I see why you thought I meant the Davis community especially when I mentioned the Davis Enterprise because I left out a word that was central to my thought.

          Still as I recall there was a monthlong sit-in in Mrak and letters in both support and opposition by groups of faculty members, alumni members, emeritus professors and others written in the local papers. There were legislators calling for Katehi’s resignation. Even Newspapers like the Bee and The Enterprise finally abandoned Katehi.

          Now I recognize the importance of the university  having  some autonomy and self governance but the ivory tower doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It has a system administration. It has an appointed governing board that has ex-officio elected officials as members. Even after decades of underfunding and privatization the state still provides UC with an ever shrinking yet still substantial portion of its funding. That funding must be appropriated by the legislature, nine members of which had enough of Katehi. If you think UCOP wasn’t sensitive to all of this and Katehi’s negative impact on the greater institution of the UC you truly do work in the ivory tower.

          As for your nasty little dig about letting ranters like me teach your students I would be the first to admit that I am unqualified to do so. Being the first in my family to even go to college I never got those advanced degrees. Still living in Davis I have always found solace in the wisdom of that L. Frank Baum character The Wizard of Oz who told the Scarecrow “Back where I come from, we have universities, seats of great learning, where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have. But they have one thing you haven’t got: a diploma.” 

          I may not have fancy degrees but I’d like to think I know right from wrong, and sometimes, that type of judgement and moral compass is more important than anything one can be taught in school no matter what level of education one attains.

        12. Jerry Waszczuk


          I read your posts ? Did you work ever for UC Davis ?  I would understand your concerns more if the UC Davis would not be a part of the UC system .  Just tell me what  Napolitano with Regents and Governor who is President of the  Board of Regents  waiting for ?  Why they dragging this mess ? Why they hired  these white collar  crime super lawyers?  If Katehi is crooked or neglected her duty and she  screwed up everything  as I understand from your posts than let her go and resolve everything in the court of law if her lawyer will sue university . I have no any problem with ?  Do you have problem with such resolution ? Did you read the Academic Senate Timline and  AS reports in this matter? Chancellor is not a  Mother Teresa . Chancellor is the administrator of the University who reports to  the UC President and   UC  Regents and  she is being independently evaluated every five years by Academic Senate and evaluation is  being submitted to the UC President. I guess that you understand what is the Academic Senate stands for  and how this university body is  functioning .  This the bottom line .  I am not friend or Chancellor’s  family  . I would have  more reasons to dislike Chancellor than anybody on this forum if I would take consideration what happened to my me , my family and many of my coworkers in UC Davis during the time when Katehi was a Chancellor . However , I found due to legal process that  it is  not the Chancellor Katehi  to blame . She is a  victim of same  the UCOP thugs as I am  myself and many other UC Davis employees I know. (not only workers as I was )


        13. DavidSmith


          Go the UC Davis Academic Senate website , contact its Chair and inquire about all the resolutions regarding Chancellor Katehi. Here is a good starter document on the timeline of events.


          Having or not having a degree doesn’t mean much. There are plenty of wise people who don’t even go to college.

          However, you have to be cautious about your “moral compass” because you have to be cautious of what information you take and use to guide your compass. If all you read is what the papers and websites (e.g. SacBee) feed you and couldn’t think beyond, then I’m afraid there is a high chance your compass will be disoriented.

          It’s never a bad idea and never to late to study and understand a little deeper how our society works.

  5. Felicity

    Is it ethical for Katehi’s attorney(s) to be using a pseudonym on these threads, pretending to be a regular member of the public? Does that violate Bar Association rules? David, you can see the IP addresses, so surely you know what Guzman is doing.

    [moderator] Please focus on the issues, not on the identities of other posters.

    1. Jerry Waszczuk


      How did you come up with such thoughts? This is out of league and insane.

      Which post would you consider a the  Melinda’s Guzman post?

    2. Matt Williams

      Felicity, your comment confuses me.  How does knowing an IP Address identify a poster.  What little I know about IP Addresses tells me that they don’t identify anything other than the Internet Service Provider associated with the IP Address.

      Can you help me with my confusion?

      1. Felicity

        It would be child’s play for David to figure out the identity of a person using a pseudonym if he’s also in email correspondence with that person, especially if that person says to David privately something like: “Oh, I’m in South Lake Tahoe today.” It’s not difficult at all.

        1. DavidSmith

          I don’t know about DavidG, but I think you should report to the Bar Association if you have evidence. If Katehi’s lawyer is indeed caught, it would probably be the worst publicity ever and game over for the team. It seems that you should act fast if you have evidence.

        2. Matt Williams

          Felicity, your statement makes no sense to me.  If the IP is in a static location, how is being on the road at a remote location like South Lake Tahoe going to link the remote location with the static location?

          Further, isn’t the prerequisite of  “if he (David) is also in email correspondence with that person”  What would cause you to believe David is going to be in email correspondence with the commenter in question?

        3. Jerry Waszczuk

          @DavidSmith: Ha… Nice try. You’re not that good, you know.


          What are you trying to achieve by being concern about somebody’s identities  on this. I don’t write under the nickname because I believe that hiding behind the nickname and writing about somebody whose indention is well known is not fully credible .  Beside the above reason my English and my  writing style  would be  recognized right away than what is a point to write under nickname.

          However , I have no any problem with people who are writing under  the nicknames.  You type “Inspector Gadget ” curiosity who is who on the forum is childish and quite damn and stupid. No offense .

        4. Felicity

          @DavidSmith: Your arrogance betrays your weakness: All bark and no bite. I know it and you know it, but your client doesn’t. That’s why she’ll be out of a job soon.

        5. DavidSmith

          Fecility, so now you not accusing me of being Guzman? and now you are attacking me for copying and pasting?

          Well the fact is that I do indeed do a lot of copying and pasting because I get a lot of information from different online sources, including the various news articles, and publicly available documents from various entities and agencies. Perhaps an advantage of me is that I work at the University so I receive emails from Academic Senate whenever they have new resolutions or new document releases. As someone who is very concerned about the development of this issue and how it will negatively affect the University, I have spent a lot of time studying these materials and formulating my thoughts and theories about what happened and why it happened. And I’m not afraid to say it’s no coincidence that I share the same view with Katehi’s team in many aspects, because that’s where evidence and reasoning will lead you.



        6. DavidSmith

          Some specific replies to your post above.

          @DavidSmith: Your arrogance betrays your weakness: All bark and no bite.

          It’s not been long since I registered and started posting here. I think I’ve learned a lot about the importance of being polite and civilized in online discussions. Looking at my posts of the past couple of weeks, I found many of them directed at individuals in a condescending matter. I often lose my temper and lose control of my language (I hate it when people don’t see reason and don’t want to see reason). I do realize that none of that helps to engage people in a meaningful discussion and often turned the discussion into personal attacks. I can definitely see how I appeared arrogant and I take this opportunity to apologize to everyone I offended. I’ll be more civilized.

          Having said all the above, could you tell me how you like to see “bite”? If you are referring to Guzman, then it’s apparent to me that they are preparing the case for a lawsuit. The grievance file in May was a prelude. Is that what you mean by “bite”?

          I know it and you know it, but your client doesn’t. That’s why she’ll be out of a job soon.

          I don’t have any client. I assume you are referring to Guzman and the client refers to Chancellor Katehi. She will have a job. She is a tenured faculty at the University and the Academic Senate is fully supporting her. There is zero chance that she will lose her job as a faculty. And she will get a large settlement from UCOP.

    3. Marina Kalugin

      yes, Felicity…how would you even know what IP address any poster has?

      are you a moderator?  typically, yes, moderators can see an IP address.

      but, my husband and I share one IP address….and that means nothing when it comes to who posts what when…

      he would not be caught dead on this site…and so forth…

      and, just because we are married, doesn’t mean we are on the same side of issues, nor would he waste his time on the juvenile nonsense like this that goes on here…

      I do, but I also care deeply about the UCD and our Chancellor….he cares, but….he is from NJ…he is much more interested in watching the Mets play…  LOL


  6. Tia Will

    just don’t take down the best Chancellor in decades while you are “being upset”

    It is my firm belief that the Chancellor took herself down through a series of very poor decisions from the timing and means of clearing the quad, through the KAU and other board messes, through the “image manipulation” issue. 

    I honestly do not know if any other Chancellor’s have been involved in such poor decision making. If so, they should be investigated too. And the same would apply to Ms. Napolitano.But none of that would absolve Chancellor Katehi from her own errors in judgement which are the underlying cause of her current problems.

    1. Marina Kalugin

      I think fewer and fewer of us care what you think Tia….nor your unfounded “firm beliefs’>..  really…who gives a

      On the other hand, I was fortunate to meet Regent Reynoso at a UC-Wide Academic Business Officers annual meeting a year or so ago, and I did care what he thinks and what he shared.

      He was not a fan of the Napo, and he said that the Gov was out to use Napo to “clean up UC”….he said that the newest Regents appointed by the gov were only there to do the gov’s bidding..

      And, yes, if you don’t know….stop inserting such idiotic “projections” into the discussions…..

      do you have some need to show how “right” you are, or to play “devil’s advocate” each time you cannot grasp the obvious?  really?

      I quote the below as that is simply more evidence and proof that truly, you have little clue, and think you do….and have to insert it how many times a day?

      I honestly do not know if any other Chancellor’s have been involved in such poor decision making. If so, they should be investigated too. And the same would apply to Ms. Napolitano.But none of that would absolve Chancellor Katehi from her own errors in judgement which are the underlying cause of her current problems.

      I would expect that a major reason the Chancellor apologized for “missteps” was on advice of campus attorneys….some of whom are truly dense males……

      As a Manager, I am responsible for everything at my department…yet, if a staff member “goes postal”….was that my fault?

      Only, if I was aware the person was upset or unbalanced prior to the incident and did not properly handle it.

      Yes, I would likely have also said I was sorry….many women apologize way too much while covering up for the idiot men in their lives….

      We women are often “sorry” and I don’t know if that word exists in the typical male vocabulary….

      1. Matt Williams

        Marina said . . . ” think fewer and fewer of us care what you think Tia….nor your unfounded “firm beliefs’>..  really…who gives a”

        Marina, is the intent of your comment to drive Tia off the website?  If so, why?

        Does Tia not have the same right to express her opinions/beliefs as anyone else?  Even though she and I disagree frequently on issues, I respect her right to have, and express her beliefs.  Isn’t that what the United States is all about?

  7. Jerry Waszczuk

    David is under no obligation to put this nonsense from Katehi’s legal team up on his site. If he wants to do so that is his choice. He makes bad choices all the time this is just one more instance of him doing so”


    Read the UC Davis Academic Senate Timeline about Chancellor Katehi. It will help you to understand the  whole issue.   The UC Davis Academic Senate leadership is  in direct communication with Melinda Haag and UC President Janet Napolitano.  If Haag will contact Vanguard and tell David her story than I am more than sure  that  David will write about  and let us know what is going on .


  8. Marina Kalugin

    the Katehi bashers, who are likely still doing it because they are paid union protestors and have no other life, are the ones who used to be amusing and now are truly nothing but time wasters and time sinks and really, many of us, who are much more in the know, would welcome the Chancellor back…

  9. Marina Kalugin

    Wow, Missie…. Hayakawa?   now what decade was that?

    I was in elementary school and then junior high when I first started protesting and marching in the early 60s… in SF, that was the place to be for a born activist like me.

    I marched at many places, Lincoln HS with my black friends, and at SF state against many things…the war, Reagan, Nixon….

    After I graduated Lowell and moved to Davis and UCD, I still kept up but not so much on SF happenings.   As a Lowell alum, I would get pulled into the fray of things like common core and such, and also see the headlines and so forth…

    Interestingly, my insights into union tactics fall on both sides of the fray…

    Later, I actually read much of what Reagan wrote, and found his ideas not as goofy as originally projected.

    And, look what happened to Nixon, yet The Napo is now running UCOP…regardless of her role in the NSA and Edward Snowden…fortunately for Ed, Putin took him in…and yet, the Napo is now running amuk as UC Pres….

    that is how life goes round and round….sighhh…

  10. hpierce

    DavidSmith wrote”

    2. Price of textbooks, as much as we hate high prices, is a complicated issue. There are many factors and a lot of it boils down to economy of scale. College textbooks have a very small market but very high production cost and a very stiff demand. Publishers’ greed is an important factor, but not everything.

    Unless things have changed since the 70’s, calling this issue “complex” is BS…  usually professors would require texts authored or contributed to by them… within a year or two, if one or two chapters were modified (in any way), the professors would specify the most recent edition.  [I was lucky, most of the texts in my main field were ‘classic’… I actually could sell some of my books back @ 25% of value (which were re-sold @ 50-75% of original value)].  By the time I was a Senior, my costs for required texts exceeded my tuition … part of my “education”, I guess… kept one or two as references…

    Professors got royalties, and the book publishers got their cut, too… perhaps the Academic Senate supports Katehi  in her role of preserving/promoting that “gravy train” [her gig with the publisher]… why, in this day/age, when most hard-print sources are moving to on-line info, is the “text-book” industry not following suit?  At least for minor revisions/new info?  There’s something wrong [rotten?] in academia.   Corruption runs deep… into your pockets it will creep… UCD and Kaheti appear to be no exceptions…

    DavidSmith… are you in a position to require any textbooks from which you reap royalties?




    1. DavidSmith


      Call it whatever you want but it’s not going to change the landscape of things. I am a professor and I know this very well. Except a few rare cases (e.g. your textbook happens to be the predominantly popular one for a fundamental subject like calculus which everyone takes), you, as an author, never make real money by writing a textbook. The royalty is around 10% and could be as low as 5%. Like I said before, most textbooks are specialized and the audience is very limited. You’d be really lucky if it sells ten thousand a year (most specialty textbook sells for a couple hundred or thousand) considering competition. Say the book sells for $100 and you get $10 for each copy sold. Then you make $50-100k a year, which is less than my base salary.

      But writing a good textbook that sells at 10 thousand/year is a herculean endeavor. It will take a lot more than 1 year of full time work to write a good textbook. When Feynman prepared his lecture notes on physics, it took him a full two year without doing much else. So think about it, in terms of money, it’s not worth the effort to write a textbook. I could do a mediocre job in teaching and research and still earn much more. Most professors write a textbook for influence rather than money.

      Some ranters above used a case involving Wiley to prove how evil they are. You can read about the case here.


      Besides the fact that the case is controversial, it really illustrates the economics at play in the determination of textbook prices. Textbook in the US are expensive because editing and publishing a textbook is very demanding (much more so than a fiction bestseller) and very labor intensive, and that the potential audience is small (i.e. total market is small). But publishers sell these same textbooks in the third world (e.g. India and China) for much less, often 1/10 – 1/5 of the US price. This is because it’s much less expensive to print the books in these countries and that the publisher probably recouped the production cost by their US sales. Now this supreme court ruling allows the international editions to be imported back to the US at scale and sold at a much lower price than the US editions. Good for the students right? Well if students all buy these international editions, then the publisher doesn’t make enough money to cover their operation and a logical consequence is either 1) they stop selling the textbook because it becomes a money losing business, or 2) they stop selling the international edition or sell it at a much higher price. Guess who will pay the ultimate price?

      Calling it BS just shows your ignorance, nothing more. Most matters being debated and quarreled over on this forum are fundamentally dictated by economics. Ignorance is not your fault, if you don’t want to listen to reason, you will never learn.

      And finally, I don’t reap royalties from students. And I always use older editions of textbooks for classes I teach because they are cheaper. I am planning to write a textbook and I plan to open source it. But just in case I decide not to open source, guess which publisher will be my first choice?

      1. DavidSmith

        Upon a second look I saw that you mentioned online publishing. Besides the fact that I think it’s a terrible idea to let the students use their laptop/tablet as a media for their textbook, do you know how much it costs to produce high quality content online? Do you know what percentage of the cost goes to physically printing the textbook? Do some investigations and you will understand.

      2. hpierce

        I wrote, “Unless things have changed since the 70’s, calling this issue “complex” is BS…”

        Perhaps things have changed since then.  I stand by my statement, but I acknowledge that you say things have changed…

        I am possibly less ignorant than you, as you apparently didn’t even read/understand my opening caveat.  But I read ALL of your post… have a good evening…

        Thou dost protest too much…

        1. DavidSmith

          I did notice that your clause and actually thought about addressing it. But first, I was very young and naive in the 70s so I didn’t know about academic textbooks during that time period well. Second, whether it changed or not doesn’t really alter any facts, conclusions, or the present situation. So I decided not to address it.

        2. hpierce

          DavidSmith… glad you admit your ignorance of the facts of the 1970’s… slightly disturbed with your ‘whitewash’ that “whether it changed or not doesn’t really alter any facts” (huh, what does that mean? That today’s reality negates past reality?).  But I decide not to address that… 

          Yet, you called me ignorant.  Fact.

          I just hope you don’t teach History nor any sciences…

      3. Misanthrop

        Wiley Raises Quarterly Cash Dividend for 23rd Consecutive Year

        I guess this is how the real world works. After losing 8-0 before the people who determine how the world works, at the Supreme Court, Wiley did what lots of big corporations do in the face of adverse news, they raised the company dividend to attract investors, who, prefer purely fiduciary capitalist boards over any other moral imperatives. Altria is famous for employing such a dividend increase strategy when adverse news about tobacco comes out.

        Wiley did exactly as you expected when they lost the first time before the Supremes they raised the prices of textbooks in Asia to protect their U.S. market from an arbitrage situation of their own making by charging premium prices at home for a product that can be produced and sold for less abroad. I do however doubt that Wiley was taking a loss on their foreign sales and subsidizing them with their US sales. More likely they were using a diminishing return model to maximize sales but when faced with the prospect of their prices being undercut by their business model they decided to forego some international sales, in less lucrative markets, in order to maintain their exorbitant margins back home in the USA.

        Although the latest setback for Wiley at the Supreme Court happened after Katehi left its board the case was mostly adjudicated while Katehi was a director. Also during the more important first Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley case where Wiley tried to claim copyright protection where none existed, Katehi was a director on a board that was trying to keep textbook prices high while defending the company’s market share all at the expense of students both at home and abroad. Ironically, Katehi, that great champion of science education, was profiting by being rewarded as a director and a fiduciary of a company that specializes in science and technical textbooks. A company that was also determined to maximize its profits as is their responsibility as fiduciaries of a company.

        In my mind this represents a moral or ethical conflict of interest if not a legal or professional one. For the chancellor of a major science oriented university  to also serve as a fiduciary of a company trying to maximize the profit it made off of those same science students may be acceptable to those who have a different moral compass than I do. Napolitano made Katehi give up a lot of money in stock and resign from the Wiley board when the story broke about De Vry so there must have been some at UCOP who also had a problem with the question of the appropriateness of Katehi wearing both these hats. What is sad, and I said it at the time, was that Katehi, in my opinion, resigned from the wrong jobs. I have no idea if Katehi ever actually divested her Wiley stock and perhaps that divestiture happened and one of her grievances might be that she ended up divesting her stock to keep her day job at UCD and then got fired anyway. If there isn’t a settlement and this ends up in court we might find out the answer otherwise unless someone knows if she actually divested her stock we will probably never find out.

        1. DavidSmith

          It’s great that you’ve gone through my comment and did some homework by yourself. But it seems that you didn’t fully understand what I said about oversee sales. I don’t believe Wiley subsidizes the oversea sales, at least not on paper. The international edition sells for much less because they are printed locally where the labor cost is much less. The international editions are also printed, in general, on low quality paper, and bound with a lower grade. I don’t think the publisher makes much profit considering the sale price of these books. However, the other reason that the international editions can be sold much cheaper is that the publisher doesn’t need to do any editing/producing because it has all been done with the US edition. The publisher is taking a copy of the US edition, print it locally, and sell it locally. The cost of editing/producing is already covered by the US sales. So in this sense, the international editions are indeed “subsidized” by the US sales. It would not be wise to think that Wiley can make a profit by selling the US edition at the same price as international editions.

          I see it a futile effort to portray an image of Chancellor Katehi controlling how Wiley operates. She was not a director. She was an external board member and I think it would be naive to believe that she had any material control over the company. It’s quite common (note that the president of CalTech was on the board of Wiley the same time Chancellor Katehi was) and I’m sure you know what external board members do.

          And you have read the timeline document provided by the academic senate (link above), you will see that Chancellor Katehi served a term from 2011 to 2014. This is way before any press covered it. And Napolitano did not make Chancellor Katehi give up the board position. From the beginning, Napolitano supported Chancellor Katehi on this board position. For what it’s worth, it was approved by UCOP. Read more and get facts straight.

          And where does the 8-0 come from?

          Note: I do realize that my rebuttal here may make it sound like textbook pricing is all legit. It is not and corporate greed plays a big part in it. But corporate greed is far from the only factor. I’m hoping that you will see the complexity of the issue.

        2. Misanthrop

          The first case was 6-3. The second case, on attorneys fees under the copyright statute in the first case, was decided on June 16, 2016. It was 8-0.


          The response by Wiley to losing the first case was to raise its overseas prices eliminating the possibility for someone to arbitrage the differences in prices between its international and domestic sales. So I’m not sure how this fits in with your contention about books being published abroad in local markets with inferior materials and cheaper labor unless they are now giving up market share but maximizing what profit they make on fewer sales at much higher prices. Obviously Wiley’s major concern was protecting its profit margin on its domestic sales. I guess it was sort of like big pharma raking it in domestically because of the lack of price regulation in the USA but in that case Pharma has been able to defeat the re-importation from abroad so that industry can still maximize profits both here and abroad.

          At any rate what are outside board members supposed to do? I though outsiders were supposed to keep the insiders in check not simply cash the check.

          Why was it reported that Katehi was going to set up a scholarship fund with the proceeds from her service, disgorging Katehi’s renumeration at Wiley if, as you contend, there was nothing unusual about her relationship with them? I recognize that UCOP knew about the Wiley gig but when the De Vry story broke the Wiley story broke at the same time and I read about her setting up the scholarship fund in response to the outcry. Was it simply $400,000 worth of optics?

          When I was looking up the Wiley board I did see that someone from Caltech had joined the board and it makes me wonder about the inter-relationships between the private sector and academia. I honestly don’t understand how someone like Katehi, running a large public university, can be on the board of a company that profits to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year from the sale of materials to students, many of whom she is supposed to serve. Call me naive all day long but in my mind its immoral. Not illegal and apparently not unethical by the standards of the Regents and UCOP but immoral in the view of this observer.

        3. DavidSmith

          I’m sorry Misanthrop, the 8-0 case you referred to was on attorney fees? You do realize that this is a totally separate issue from the 6-3 ruling on whether it’s legal to import international editions for sale in the US?

          The response by Wiley to losing the first case was to raise its overseas prices eliminating the possibility for someone to arbitrage the differences in prices between its international and domestic sales. So I’m not sure how this fits in with your contention about books being published abroad in local markets with inferior materials and cheaper labor unless they are now giving up market share but maximizing what profit they make on fewer sales at much higher prices. Obviously Wiley’s major concern was protecting its profit margin on its domestic sales.

          I think this is exactly what I said in my post above. You are seeing simple economics at work. Any sane for-profit business will do the same. If Wiley domestic margin goes to zero or negative, they won’t be producing any books. And you have one less competitor in an oligopoly. What do you think will happen?

  11. DavidSmith


    I apologize for that. Emotion sometimes gets me and I’m not careful with my language. That happened several times before and I’ll try to be more civilized.

    But to that point , I really wish people on this forum could at least do some study before they express their opinions. It’s really not difficult to do some google searches and investigations. A lot of times, things are not as simple as they look and common sense actually doesn’t apply.

    1. hpierce

      We’re cool…  but after as many years of experience, in many fields, as I have, I don’t feel a need to exhaust all data to render an opinion. And I have found “common sense” to be useful, but not all that common.

      I truly do wish a good evening (and good life) to you, DavidSmith and all of yours… please understand that is genuine, and goes far beyond any disagreements… and I extend that to all the posters here…

      Pax… Pachem… Paix… Shalom… Salaam… Peace

  12. DavidSmith

    I have been bashing UCOP for a long time. Many people do not share my view. I think the following document from UCD Academic Senate is worth reading (which Jerry posted several times before) if you are really baffled why some of us are standing up to the UCOP. I even think that DavidG ought to write an article on this document.


    Some excerpts.

    *** September 15, 2011 Katehi joins John Wiley and Sons Board of Directors along with Jean-Lou Chameau who is President, California Institute of Technology (Caltech). She serves until September 18, 2014 when she does not stand for reelection.

    *** February 2012 UC Davis Foundation requests Katehi to improve the image of UC Davis and the institution’s capacity to respond to crises on social media and the internet in response to pepper spray incident.

    *** November 19, 2014: Ralph Hexter, Provost responds to series of communications received from Medved. Response cites UCOP 2010 investigation of UC Davis Department of Intercollegiate Athletics and use of student fees. Letter concludes with “This concludes the University’s review of this matter.” (Special Representative Assembly Meeting and Update on Information Release, page 19.) (DS’s note: this is in regard to the misuse of student funds allegation in UCOP’s letter. It is a matter that was investigated and concluded 1.5 years ago)

    *** January 7, 2016 Katehi files pre-approval with UCOP to gain approval to sit on DeVry board (Chair’s Updates to the Academic Senate, March 28, page 8).
    *** February 20, 2016 UC Davis staff notify UCOP that Katehi will be appointed to DeVry Education Group Board on February 22.
    *** February 22, 2016 DeVry Education Group announces appointment of Katehi to Board along with Ann Weaver Hart, Ph.D., and President of the University of Arizona.
    (DS’s note: Chancellor Katehi sought UCOP’s approval before taking DeVry’s board position. UCOP did not respond in time. This is not to justify the Chancellor’s choice, simply to show that she followed procedures)

    *** April 25, 2016 Napolitano meets Katehi in Oakland and requests Katehi’s resignation from the University. Chancellor Katehi informs others that President Napolitano demanded she resign from the university before leaving the President’s office. When the Chancellor mentioned that she is a faculty member and she has tenure President Napolitano told her that it was Chancellor Katehi’s decision to resign from the University or just resign as a Chancellor. But if she were to resign as a Chancellor she would investigate her and her family. (DS’s note: what type of tactics is this?) Because of her rights as a senate faculty member with tenure, and because of the Senate’s role in shared governance, Chancellor Katehi contacted the Academic Senate Chair because she wanted him to be informed of what took place in the meeting, and also, in her capacity as a faculty member, to request assistance from the Academic Senate. Also, she was given an ultimatum to resign without the opportunity to know the reason why President Napolitano changed her position from public support on March 9 to demanding her resignation and she believed this violated her rights as a member of the faculty.

    *** April 26, 2016 Meeting set for Thursday April 28 between Napolitano, Katehi, and attorneys to discuss Katehi situation.
    ***April 27, 2016 Napolitano announces Katehi to be put on paid administrative leave for 90 days citing the employment of family members, use of student fees and statements regarding contracts involving improving UC Davis’s performance on social media and search engine optimization. UCOP shares letter with accusations with media the evening of April 27 . (DS’s note: again, what type of tactics is this? How disingenuous do you have to be to play games like this?)

    *** May 2016 During the month of May the Academic Senate passes resolutions related to their concerns about the manner in which the investigation will be performed, lack of definition of the scope of the investigation, lack of consultation with the Academic Senate, lack of shared governance, the independence of the investigation, desire to accelerate the timeline for the investigation and potential conflicts of interest involving President Napolitano and her participation in the investigation. (DS’s note. UCOP ignored everything from the Academic Senate and never responded.)

  13. Misanthrop

    “*** February 2012 UC Davis Foundation requests Katehi to improve the image of UC Davis and the institution’s capacity to respond to crises on social media and the internet in response to pepper spray incident.”

    I think in the end it was the idea that she hired people to manipulate what came up in an internet search of UCD that sank Katehi. Rigging the search data seems akin to the suppression of ideas or the truth that is anathema to the entire concept of academia. Being asked to improve the image of the university doesn’t give license to violation of the institution’s foundational principles. By the way, when the internet scrub story broke I predicted Katehi would be out by May 15. I think the protestors in Mrak knew it too which is why they vacated the day after the story broke. So perhaps I do know something about how the world works even if I’m a little naive about the machinations of the byzantine world of UC administration.

    1. DavidSmith

      I think the protestors in Mrak knew it too which is why they vacated the day after the story broke.

      Great point here.

      I use to believe that these students, naive as they are, are innocent and that their actions reflect the frustrations of their generation.

      Not anymore after what happened that week.

      Utterly disgusting.

      1. Jerry Waszczuk


        Great point here is how the students were used to get Chancellor and it did not work . Nobody wanted to pepper spray them in Mrak Hall. Lt. Pike and the Campus Counsel Steven Drown were not around anymore  to do the job. .

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for