True Colors – The Chancellor as Seen through Her Own Actions

Share:
Chancellor Katehi in February
Chancellor Katehi in February

By Tia Will

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 the Sacramento Bee ran an article entitled “Katehi holds off on $ 200,000 pledge for scholarships amid UC investigation”.  The article states

“Katehi, 62, may rescind the pledge altogether, depending on the outcome of a University of California investigation into her actions as chancellor, according to her private spokesman, Larry Kamer.”

I found this action if reported correctly, troubling on a number of counts but I suppose in retrospect I should not have found it as surprising as I did. Up until now, I have found the Chancellor to be a poor fit for leadership of a public university, based on her own words and actions. I have found a number of her actions to be an exercise of poor judgment or not in alignment with the responsibilities of a public leader, but I previously had no reason to doubt her basic integrity. The choice to back out of a promise for even this relatively small amount of financial support for the students who are her primary charge as head of a public university has caused me to change this opinion.

 My own mother was not an educated woman. She did not graduate from high school.  She did not have the Chancellor’s advanced degrees nor accolades. But she did have a form of wisdom based on honesty and personal integrity. She encouraged me to judge myself and other individuals not on how much money we had, how we looked, or what we said, but rather on the basis of our actions. She said that only through actions could we judge someone’s true colors.  With this in mind, here is how I see the Chancellor through her own actions.

Dates as found on Wikipedia :

1977  Ms. Katehi graduates with  a degree in electrical engineering  from the National  Technological University of Athens

She went on to earn her master’s degree and doctorate in electrical engineering at UCLA’s Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Sciences in 1981 and 1984, respectively.[3]

1984 – 2001 she works as professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

1994 – she accepts role as associate dean of academic affairs and graduate education

2002 – She is hired as the Engineering Dean at Purdue

2005 – She becomes the first female provost and Vice Chancellor of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana

2009 Linda Katehi accepts the position of Chancellor at UCD

Approximate salary at time of acceptance $400,000

In her role as Chancellor of UCD she charged a committee with creating a “Vision of Excellence” for the school, launched several blue ribbon committees including tech transfer and commercialization, research and informational technology excellence, and organizational excellence and created the Chancellor’s Colloquium Distinguished Speakers Series

2013 – She launched the World Food Center

She has continued the UCD tradition of supporting women and minorities through enrollment through their participation as both undergraduates and graduates especially in the STEM fields. She has excelled in attracting money for research and other university endeavors.

These are all truly remarkable accomplishments in their own right. I fully respect Chancellor Katehi for her scientific and academic accomplishments and for her dedication to the furthering of science and especially the role of women in science. Nothing I say hereafter reflects negatively on what she has accomplished in this sphere of her life.

However, back to my mother’s advice about judging by actions, not by words or appearance alone.

To have a complete view of the Chancellor’s performance, one also has to look at actions which may not have quite as much luster. So here is a second set of facts about the actions of the Chancellor.

1.” Katehi served as provost and vice chancellor for academic affairs at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign from April 1, 2006 to June 2009. As the Provost she oversaw all Colleges and Schools, the Library, HR, IT, facilities and was in charge of the University budget. She oversaw the admissions for UIUC during part of the time period (2003-2009) that came to be investigated under of the University of Illinois clout scandal. Dr. Katehi denied involvement, saying the “Category I” decisions were made at higher administrative levels.”

What is of interest to me here is not what the Chancellor did since a subsequent investigation confirmed that these decisions were not directly in her hands. It is what she did not do that bothers me. She did not speak out publicly and vigorously against this practice, but only claimed that she was not directly responsible. This would be fine in my eyes for a low level employee, but is a breach of responsibility for anyone in a leadership position.

2. November 18, 2011 Chancellor Katehi directs the police to clear the quad resulting in the pepper spray incident. The subsequent Reynoso investigation held her directly responsible for a number of inadequacies of judgment and leadership resulting in this unlawful assault on peaceful demonstrators. (Please see post of 7/2/16 for substantiation of this report finding).

Although the Chancellor stated that she took “full responsibility for the incident” she accepted no tangible accountability and only members of the police force were disciplined.

3. January 2013 – UCD under the leadership of Chancellor Katehi signs a six month contract with Nevins and Associates at $15,000 per month. Nevins and associates said in a company document that it “would work to remedy the venomous rhetoric about UC Davis and the chancellor” through “strategic placement of online content”. In effect, university employees under Chancellor Katehi as the head of the university chose to spend at least $ 90,000 to look, but not actually be any better.

4. March 2016 Chancellor Katehi apologizes publicly for participation in a number of outside boards including Wiley and Sons, DeVry Education Group and King Abdulaziz University of Saudi Arabia. She promises to donate $200,000 of her Wiley stock proceeds out of $420,000 compensation for serving on their board to a fund dedicated to student education.

5. July 1, 2016, per her spokesman Larry Kamer as reported by the Sacramento Bee, Chancellor Katehi has suspended and may rescind her promise of $200,000 in Wiley stock proceeds depending on the outcome of a University of California investigation of her actions as Chancellor.

Unless someone can demonstrate that this promise was made conditionally pending the outcome of future twists and turns of her career, I view this as a betrayal of a promise made to future students, as an affirmation of previous charges that she has repeatedly placed personal wealth accumulation over student and university interests and as such has proven herself to be unsuited to head a public university.

Now, I do not expect any individual will excel in every aspect of their job. I know that in any complex system, be it science or high level administration, mistakes will be made. I do not blame anyone including the Chancellor for honest mistakes. However, what I see here, in the Chancellor’s actions is a pattern of poor judgment followed by deflection, denial of responsibility, blatant abdication of accountability, placement of appearance over substance, and finally the withdrawal of a promise of support for those who most need it, future students who are clearly not responsible for any of these events but who will pay the price. Through her own actions and in some cases inaction, the Chancellor in my eyes has failed to fulfill the totality of her job as leader and role model for students, employees, researchers, and instructors of a public university and should resign.

Share:

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

99 thoughts on “True Colors – The Chancellor as Seen through Her Own Actions”

  1. Barack Palin

    Why is it so shocking that someone would rescind a pledge based on the outcome of an investigation which would could cost her her job and income?  Maybe she feels she will be needing that money if she no longer has employment.

    1. Felicity

      As long as she did not commit a criminal offense, she will have a job for life as an engineering professor at UCD. So if she’s worried about her income, as you suggest, then that would imply that she is potentially in deep, deep trouble.

      1. Barack Palin

        I don’t know, if I had Big Sis coming after me with all her resources and funds even if I knew I was innocent I would have my trepidations and would lean towards protecting whatever wealth I had.

      2. Felicity

        Napolitano would never in a million years be able to deprive Katehi of her status as a tenured professor, unless she did something criminal. No savvy person at UCD thinks that her tenure is in jeopardy. She will keep her professorship, unless she resigns (if she hasn’t committed embezzlement or some other crime).

        1. Felicity

          I’m talking about her status, not her work record. She has tenured status and can choose to stay employed at the UC as a professor. No one, including Napolitano would be able to stop her from doing that, practically speaking, if she so chooses. Technically the Regents could, but they certainly would not (unless there is something worse that she did that we don’t yet know about, which is possible — look how hard the “Distractor in Chief” below is attempting to throw the conversation off course).

  2. nameless

    While I am no fan of Katehi, it should be noted that Katehi’s attorney is claiming UC directed her to give the Wiley& Sons money to a student scholarship fund.  If true (and I would not be surprised if this were the case), Katehi would be the only UCD faculty member singled out and required to do something like this.  Frankly this whole investigation has uncovered a less than savory practice by UC faculty of board appointments that might represent conflicts of interest.  The policy regarding board appointments needs changing.

    1. Tia Will

      nameless

      I completely agree that this policy needs a complete re evaluation.

      I also find it interesting that when Chancellor Katehi made her announcement that she would be making this donation, I do not recall any comment that she was doing so at the behest of any higher ups in the University system. My impression from the news as reported was that this was a spontaneous donation on her part. I would be interested if anyone has information documenting the reason for her promised donation.

       

      1. PhillipColeman

        Katehi claims she was coerced into making the donation. Most likely, the truth is somewhere in between. In deliberations between the Chancellor and the President, certainly the topic came up as to how should WE handle this to minimize the bad press that makes both of us look like idiots. Either side could then say, “What about turning the proceeds into a donation?”

        The President can later defend her role by saying the profit incentive has been removed, Katehi has repented, and I’m happy. The Chancellor could, and did, say that she made a little boo-boo, she’s really sorry, and and as a good faith gesture I’ll give the money to a noble cause.

        Everything went fine after that, until the second explosion took place a short time later.

        1. nameless

          Good assessment of the situation – this is precisely how I saw it.  A decision made by both sides for a PR benefit at the time, until the “second explosion took place” as you say.

      2. Jerry Waszczuk

         I would be interested if anyone has information documenting the reason for her promised donation.

        Tia

        It was no reason , I think that  it was  defense move in panic  . Katehi  was caught of guard. She never thought that serving on the other boards would ever be an issue because it would  not be if her was for example  Tia Will . This  is a whole point .

        1. Tia Will

          Jerry

          It was no reason , I think that  it was  defense move in panic  “

          I have no idea whether or not you are right, but if you are, it would be yet another example of poor judgement. Do you really want the Chancellor of a major university to be someone who panics into poor decision making ?

        2. Jerry Waszczuk

          Tia

          We don’t know all  circumstances ? Maybe she was told by Napolitano to do it . Is was weird because Napolitano supported her and then everything went viral   went viral. Is nothing to do with poor judgment . You have to understand  the power given to Chancellor.’ As I stated many times if it would a different Chancellor than we would not hear about .  I think that when Napolitano and Appelsmith were brought to the  university  Chancellor Katehi should find job in  other side of the country togetrher  with her family . Too late

  3. Jerry Waszczuk

    $ 200, 000 is lot of money . Melinda Guzman and Larry Kamer  are  not  a cheap lawyers and Chancellor is not the  UCOP with an  unlimited access to the university bank account to pay her legal fees.  Until Chancellor is on suspension and is not terminated than the  legal contracts  with Guzman and Kamer  is most likely not based on the contingency fee. That the  reason for this decision Chancellor made .   Personally, I think  that  it was not easy decision for chancellor to make after she made  the pledge.

    However , after Chancellor  in March 2016 made the pledge  to contribute money to the scholarship fund  and the  Napolitano’s support on March 9, 2016, she  got caught  of guard with the Napolitano’s demands for her resignation than she was suspended at the end of April 2016.

    When I read the article in the Sacramento Bee and statement that: “Chancellor Katehi’s attorney has gone through thousands and thousands of these records determining which are privileged, and those are held aside,” Kamer said. “The vast majority of the records on these devices either have been or are about to be turned over.”   than I was not surprised that $ 200, 000 stays in the chancellor private Bank account. 

    This article is good to fire up  radical left thinking  students and direct them to occupy and burn to to the ground  chancellor Katehi’s  residence .

     

     

    1. Alan Miller

      >This article is good to fire up  radical left thinking  students and direct them to occupy and burn to to the ground  chancellor Katehi’s  residence .

      Yes, I’m sure that’s exactly what TW intended.  I’ll ask her when she returns from her Black Bloc Anarchist meeting.

      In other words, Come the F— on, JW!  You are the one who mentioned the method and the target.  If I were the FBI, I’d be looking at those statements before anything stated in the article.

  4. Tia Will

    Jerry

    This article is good to fire up  radical left thinking  students and direct them to occupy and burn to to the ground  chancellor Katehi’s  residence .”

    Oh for heaven’s sake.  This is absurd on a number of levels.

    1) How many “radical left thinking students” do you think read the Vanguard ?

    2) Even if they all did, where in the article do you see any call to action ?

    3) The only violence with regard to UCD radical left thinking students was perpetrated on them, not by them, at the time of the pepper spray incident in which the Chancellor was a major decision maker, not a victim, even though her finger was not on the spray container, it would not have happened without her poor decision making.

    3) Chancellor Katehi’s residence is not her private property, but that of the university.  As such they would be destroying university property, not that of Chancellor Katehi.

    4) I have been consistent in my recommendation that the Chancellor resign, not that anyone else take any action. This article in no way changes my position, but simply reinforces and clarifies it.

    1. PhillipColeman

      “How many “radical left thinking students” do you think read the Vanguard ?”

      None of those adjectives apply to me and I read the Vanguard. So, I’m guessing the number is zero.

       

  5. Tia Will

    Jerry and BP

    Perhaps the two of you are fine with reneging on previously made promises. I am not.

    And while $200,000 dollars may be a great deal of money to you and me, I would remind you that the Chancellor is drawing a yearly compensation of $400,000 dollars as Chancellor, unknown ( at least to me) compensation for her academic post, her husband’s academic and potentially administrative post, she has kept the remainder of her proceeds from her board participation, and presumably also has income from her various patents.

    What is clear is that this $200,000 dollars probably represents a different value with respective to her total holdings for the Chancellor than it would for any of us.  Or perhaps you all are in agreement with the statement of a prominent national politician that 1 million dollars represents a “small” loan. I simply do not see it that way.

    1. nameless

      Would you feel differently about the “reneging” if it was revealed Katehi was told to make the donation by higher ups, while no other administrator was asked to do this for the same infraction (altho it was not really even an infraction since she was given permission to be on the Wiley & Sons board)?

      1. SODA

        I for one would need to examine the statements made at the time but it was my impression from the coverage that it was her idea and a generous show of student support.

        If this isn’t true and she portrayed it that way, add it to the list. If untrue why was this the perception?

      2. Tia Will

        nameless

        I would absolutely feel differently if this were demonstrated to be the case since it is apparent to me that all of the administrators should be held to the same standard.

  6. Barack Palin

    JW, I think witch hunt might be the more valid analogy.  There’s people that have been after Katehi ever since the pepper spray incident and now are trying to bring her down through any means necessary.

     

    1. Jerry Waszczuk

      Barack

      edited
      Here is something similar to hostile work environment when  a group employees are ganged and bullied vulnerable supervisor or co-worker. In 2010 one of my UCDMC coworker committed suicide because others ganged up on him.

      The situation in UCD 2001 was not better than is today in regards to employee -employer relation.  
      edited
      February 10, 2001
       Mr. Steven T. Jones
      SN&R
      1015 20th Street
      Sacramento, 95814
       
      RE: “STANDING UP TO BULLIES”
       Dear Mr. Jones:
         The best part of your article is the quoted statement of the former UC Davis graduate student Lauren Moret who described the UC as a “pathological institution run by arrogant and ruthless administrators.”
       
      Based on my own observations and experience, I could state with confidence that “workplace bullying” in the UC system has gotten out of control and will become a chronic problem very. I am a worker at UC Davis Medical Center and many of my coworkers are 15 – 23 year veterans of UCDMC.  They remember the time when UCDMC was very pleasant and a people oriented place to work. This environment has changed drastically causing many UCDMC employees to quit or take jobs at the UC Davis Campus where working condition according to them, are more tolerable.
       
      The UCDMC became a greedy non-profit corporation in which “No Mercy, No Prisoners and No Geneva Convention” is the order of the day with a total denial that a problem exists.  The rules do not apply to management, at least this is the writing on the walls that newcomers to the UCDMC must comprehend.
       
      Incidentally as a worker, I had the occasion to participate in a training course designed for UCDMC’s supervisory staff.  This course taught how to administer disciplinary measures directed against subordinates, and how to handle organized labor. After this free lesson of supervision,
      Referring back to your article about workplace bullying as well fostering a hostile environment, I don’t see how the new proposed bill entitled the “healthy workplace bill” would have a chance of survival in the California Legislature and become law.  And if it did become law, it would be rendered a worthless law since it impossible for it to be enforced.  There is too much subjectivity and not enough objectivity.  This may come across as the” cry-baby” law. The other route this legislation may take is that it may turn into a “witch hunt” which would create more problems than solve in the work place.  Existing laws protect employees from hostilities and intolerable working conditions. The problem here is that the common man does not know these laws exist, let alone how to access the law. The proposed bill lists the kinds of “tangible harm” which basically would require the plaintiff to prove a pattern of abuse with sophisticated professional expertise backing up the testimony that this “tangible harm” actually happened and was inflicted by the accused party. The abusive behavior must be witnessed and well documented in order for this to work.  The other issue is that coworkers may be hesitant to testify in court against an employer, the same employer who provides them a paycheck. The fear of a backlash against those who testify is real.  Unfortunately, this great dependency for this paycheck will inhibit justice from ever being served and the employer knows this. The power of employer intimidation with no recourse on the part of the employee is in and of itself, the very foundation for an abusive UC employer-employee work relationship. 
       
      ” I felt bullied, belittled, discriminated [against], powerless and angry, Jackie Quig wrote of her experience of working for 13 years in the Ophthalmology Department at the University of California at Davis”
       
      I would like to ask Ms.Quig if this situation still exists or was it resolved?  I need to know because it is hard to believe that anybody could cope with this abuse and humiliation for 13 years. Is this a true story?
       
      I don’t believe that any court in this country will rule to remove the offending party from the position they hold. The law in this matter is clear and well established. I reviewed one court case where a judge ordered a manager to attend Management Anger Control Class for few months every weekend.
      Sincerely,                                   
                                                     
      Jerry Waszczuk                          
      Power Plant Operator                   
      UCDMC-Central Plant                 
       
      [moderator] Please stop direct attacks on other Vanguard participants.

    2. Tia Will

      BP

      I think witch hunt might be the more valid analogy”

      It is very hard to have a “witch hunt” when there is no “hunt” involved. All of the situations that I sited are in the public realm and freely admitted to by the Chancellor although in several cases although she admitted the action, she did not claim any wrongdoing and I explained my rationale for including the Champagne-Urbana situation.

      1. DavidSmith

        Chancellor Katehi was made to apologize and be regretful too many times for too many things that she did not do, for things that are totally legit under UC policies, and for standard practices that are common in other campuses and even the UCOP. The public media spins it around with bias, provocative language, and no context, and then people start using her own apologies to criticize and crucify her.

        1. Tia Will

          DavidSmith

          Needless to say I do not agree with you assertion that “she was made to apologize” for things that she did not do. She may well have felt pressured to apologize for what she did do, but I see this as a virtue not as the sign of a victim. If you have evidence that she did not do the things that she said she did, I would love to see it. Otherwise I am inclined to take her at her own word.

        2. Marina Kalugin

          of course,  DavidSmith, your assessment is accurate….she was “advised” to “take responsibility and apologize” by not-so-competent campus attorney “advisors” who likely didn’t have her back either……

          as the head of  a major university, one can say that is where the buck stops….so of course, it is not a stretch to “take responsibility” and “apologize”….but if what the person was advised to “feel bad” about is not a violation,

          then even “taking responsibility” and “apologizing” will also be misconstrued by the likes of the OP….as “she knew she was doing something wrong”……

          that some on this board run those same tired “explanations” as some sort of proof that something was done wrong, is so highly illogical, and yet I see some here try to force that down everyone’s throats as if they are espousing some “amazing truth” day in and day out…. when in reality it is total nonsense….

          for those without the analytical skills to dig through such things, it is useless to try to get them to understand that, Jerry….stop wasting your time…

           

  7. SODA

    To Felicity’s 1:01 comment

    yes I understand the difference. I was a little tongue in cheek when I asked if you thought she would exercise her tenured position in the future (and whether she had taught at UCD in the past) if she is removed from her Chancellor at will position.

    1. DavidSmith

      As far as I know, she will.

      She has taught and directed research for over 20 years before taking on full-time administrative work. Teaching at UCD is not really much different than teaching at other public universities.

  8. DavidSmith

    I also find it not as shocking if Chancellor Katehi has to use her own money to fight the UCOP who is using UC’s money for being unfairly and wrongfully treated.

  9. DavidSmith

    To have a complete view of the Chancellor’s performance, 

    Speaking of “completeness”, I find that your article and your view above severely underplayed Chancellor Katehi’s leadership in making UCD a better university. You ignored the bulk of the achievement outlined in the following review document approved by the Academic Senate, the governing body that represent UCD professors.

    http://academicsenate.ucdavis.edu/local_resources/docs/pdf/academic%20senate%20stewardship%20review_3-30-15.pdf

    As I have repeatedly stated, Chancellor Katehi has done tremendous work in improving UCD. Her achievement far outweighs the few “missteps” you mentioned above, some of which are not even her fault.

     

  10. DavidSmith

    Although the Chancellor stated that she took “full responsibility for the incident” she accepted no tangible accountability and only members of the police force were disciplined.

    This is a false allegation. Saying that ” she accepted no tangible accountability and only members of the police force were disciplined.” is far from the truth

    Please take a look at the following document released by the Academic Senate, which shows that Chancellor Katehi has genuinely taken recommendations from various investigations and put significant work into transforming the university’s system and methods of responding to similar events.

    http://academicsenate.ucdavis.edu/local_resources/docs/whats_new_2016/ucd_chancellor_timelinefactsheet_6.21.16.pdf

    Excerpts:

    May 2012 Academic Senate Resolution to censure Katehi, launches Special Committee Administrative Oversight to assure oversight of the Chancellor’s efforts to implement pepper-spray recommendations and Special Committee: Freedom of Expression to address the need for new policies and procedures for implementation that clearly define the appropriate time, place and manner of freedom of expression on the campus.

    May 15, 2013 Executive Council Administrative Oversight Special Committee submits final report, confirming that plan has been put in place to meet all recommendations related to pepper spray incident, except one (Police Accountability board). This included complete revision of police department policies (reviewed and supported by the ACLU).

    December 2013 Katehi reports to Academic Senate progress on recommendations related to pepper spray incident. Results include Freedom of Expression policy and UC Davis Police Accountability Board. Report lifts Academic Senate censure against Katehi.

    I suggest, as I have repeatedly done, that you do more fact checking before you express your opinions. You do understand that your opinion posted here, a public forum, may wrongfully influence others.

    1. DavidSmith

      It continues to baffle me why you keep ignoring the information, posted by me and various others several times, that represents UCD faculty’s views. We are talking about the Chancellor of a major university. Yet the voice of the majority of its faculty members has been purposely suppressed.

      And it baffles me even more that some of you think that life politicians, the likes of Jerry Brown and Napolitano, knows better how to run an academic institution that thrives on academic freedom and innovation.

       

      1. Tia Will

        DavidSmith

        What baffles me about your post of 6:07 pm is that I have not ignored the information you have posted. I have responded to many of your specific posts. Just because I do not agree with you does not mean that I have ignored you.

        And what is still more baffling is what I have ever written that gives you the idea that I believe that career politicians such as Governor Brown or Janet Napolitano know better how to run an academic institution. I have never made a single comment regarding the competency of either of these individuals to do their own jobs, or to run an academic institution. Can you really see no difference in calling out what I see as inappropriate actions of the Chancellor and judging the actions of two other individuals ?

        1. DavidSmith

          Tia

          And what is still more baffling is what I have ever written that gives you the idea that I believe that career politicians such as Governor Brown or Janet Napolitano know better how to run an academic institution.

          I apologize on this one. I was not referring to you. The “you” in my original comment was general (in fact referring to some other commenters in another thread). I should have been more careful.

    2. Tia Will

      DavidSmith

      that you do more fact checking before you express your opinions”

      I did not post anything that was not factual ( at least according to the named sources).

      I think that this is a case of us defining “accountability” differently. At no point did I state that the Chancellor did not make changes to campus policy or procedures. I did not state that she did not launch a Special Committee of Administrative Oversight. I did not say anything at all about her reporting out on changed recommendations.

      What I said was that she did not take personal accountability. She did not accept any personal discipline. We had two, perhaps three police officers lose their jobs over this matter. That was, in my opinion, designating scapegoats. That was holding them personally accountable for their actions. The Chancellor herself did not suggest that she personally take administrative retraining in areas of emergency management. She did not voluntarily accept a reduction in pay or suggest any other steps that would demonstrate that she felt any personal responsibility for the events of that day.

      It is one thing to make changes in a system and that was clearly needed. I am glad that she took those steps.

      It is quite another thing to take personal responsibility, accept one’s own limitations and actively work to improve in those areas that are identified. This she did not do. I find this deeply disappointing in such a high ranking administrator. However, I did not see this as sufficient reason to call for her resignation when it was only one such episode. However, as the timeline indicates, it is not just one such episode, but a series of similar decisions on her part that has caused me to favor her resignation.

      1. DavidSmith

        I think that this is a case of us defining “accountability” differently. At no point did I state that the Chancellor did not make changes to campus policy or procedures. I did not state that she did not launch a Special Committee of Administrative Oversight. I did not say anything at all about her reporting out on changed recommendations.

        I’m glad that you can acknowledge the above.

        What I said was that she did not take personal accountability.

        Well, let me post what you said in your article above again.

        she accepted no tangible accountability and only members of the police force were disciplined.

        And what “personal accountability” are you exactly referring to?

        1. Tia Will

          And what “personal accountability” are you exactly referring to?”

          I previously gave several examples of what I thought might have been appropriate actions that she could have taken. I am sure that there would have been many alternatives that she could have chosen, but did not.

  11. Tia Will

    As reported in the Sacramento Bee of March 4, 2016 is the following statement made by Chancellor Katehi.

    “I take my responsibilities as Chancellor of UC Davis, and to the entire University of California, very seriously and sincerely regret having accepted service on boards that create appearances of conflict with my deep commitment to serve UC Davis and its students,” Katehi said in a statement released late Friday. “I have resigned from the DeVry board and intend to donate all the stock proceeds I made from serving on the John Wiley and Sons board to a scholarship fund for UC Davis students. I look forward to continuing to serve the UC community.”

    Please note the absence of any comment regarding having been forced or even requested to do so by Ms. Napolitano or anyone else in the UC administration. At the same time she is further quoted as saying:

    “To further our work together on behalf of California students, here is my commitment to our UC Davis community: I will establish a $200,000 scholarship fund for California undergraduate students at UC Davis from my Wiley stock proceeds.” Again, no mention of doing this under duress. Taken together, these statements would imply to me that this was her idea as means of atonement for her previous poor choices.

    Compare the March 4th quoted statements with the current implication that she was “forced” into making this contribution. I have no further knowledge on this matter at this time but would greatly appreciate it if anyone having documentation or proof that this pledge was coerced would state their source.

    1. DavidSmith

      Let’s imagine for now, that Chancellor Katehi was indeed “forced”. How would you expect her to make the press release. Would you expect she say “I, under the pressure of Napolitano, will establish a $200,000 scholarship fund for California undergraduate students at UC Davis from my Wiley stock proceeds.” Napolitano certainly wouldn’t be happy to hear that, right?

      1. Tia Will

        Jerry

        As I stated many times if it would a different Chancellor than we would not hear about .”

        Yes, you have stated this many times. I am still awaiting any documentation to support this position. I believe that if we are willing to state our opinion we should be willing to support it with facts or at least admit if we do not have any supporting evidence that it is simply our opinion.

        The main reason that I wrote this piece was to put forward from the evidence available to me a summary of the Chancellor’s strengths and weaknesses as I see them. I had been largely been stating my opinion in response to many posts one-sidedly supporting the Chancellor so I felt responsible for laying out the facts behind my opinion. I realize that many hear do not agree with me, and for those who do not, I would truly appreciate seeing their evidence some of which I will probably agree ( as in the steps that she took to change policy after the pepper spray incident which DavidSmith pointed out). But without actual evidence, it is all just opinion.

        1. DavidSmith

          I had been largely been stating my opinion in response to many posts one-sidedly supporting the Chancellor so I felt responsible for laying out the facts behind my opinion.

          In doing so, you also ignored other evidence that I and others have provided.

          I don’t think it’s fair to say “one-sidedly”, at least not for my posts. I have repeatedly, stated my view which is that Chancellor Katehi’s achievement at UCD far outweighs the her “missteps”, and that some of these “missteps” have been blown out of proportion by the media.

        2. Jerry Waszczuk

          Tia

          I represented whistle blowers who reported management bigger crimes  than alleged violations policies by Chancellor and whistle blowers were punished and managers were promoted with higher  positions and  pay raises . I wrote you once about CEO in UC Davis Medical Center who gave herself $ 200, 000 from $ 800, 000 to $ 1,000,000  pay raise  with threats that she will quit if the pay rise would be not approved. You even  did not notice this. However you complaining over and over about Katehi’s  salary .

          Sacramento Bee wrote short article about this $ 200, 000 pay raise and it was end of the story . Here Chancellor made some extra money and sky fell right away .

          Look   regents Del La Pena . His crime was more serious crime. He tried  to make money of his private businesses with university by using his regents position .  This is racketeering .

      2. Tia Will

        DavidSmith

        Would you expect she say “I, under the pressure of Napolitano, will establish a $200,000 scholarship fund for California undergraduate students at UC Davis from my Wiley stock proceeds.”

        I would have phrased it a little differently myself. I might have expected something like, “I have been directed by Janet Napolitano to establish a $200,000 scholarship fund  for California undergraduate students at UC Davis from my Wiley stock proceeds.”

        Or if she wanted to be still more diplomatic perhaps something like ” In consultation with Janet Napolitano I have decided to establish a $ 200,000 scholarship fund…..”

        I would certainly expect that if she had indeed been “pressured” it would be within the scope of a University Chancellor to find a diplomatic means of expressing that this was not entirely her idea without causing a major publicity fiasco.  But then, perhaps that is just me expecting too much of someone in her position.

        1. Jerry Waszczuk

          Tia

          In other post I gave example about scientist who was suffering because HVAC equipment was not repaired and when new technician repaired the equipment than he was hunted down because UC Davis  has billions  of dollars in unpaired equipment but CEO has to get $ 200, 000 pay raise . Somebody responded to my post. I am sorry for this technician . This was not the point . Point was that UC Davis  cronies getting fat pay raises and thousand of dollars in bonuses and scientists and stuff are being engendered because is no money  to repair equipment. You and other are completely blind about more serious problem plaguing  UC Davis because Neapolitano and UCOP  orchestrated Chancellor crucifixion show for people like you to have fun . And it is not a fun at least for me .

        2. DavidSmith

          I might have expected something like, “I have been directed by Janet Napolitano to establish a $200,000 scholarship fund  for California undergraduate students at UC Davis from my Wiley stock proceeds.”

          Then haters will follow, “look, this woman doesn’t even know how to make decisions herself. Failure as a leader”

          perhaps something like ” In consultation with Janet Napolitano I have decided to establish a $ 200,000 scholarship fund…..”

          Then haters will say, ” gosh she is making $400k every year! do you have to be so reluctant to show your good faith to students who you claim you love?”

          People can always spin things around. Look at SacBee and you will see.

        3. MAli

          Sorry Tia, Katehi doing it of her own free will, instead of under duress, provides cover for Katehi to take responsibility and disgorge her profits thus opening the door to remaining Chancellor despite the firestorm that was building beneath Katehi that included more and more legislators calling for her resignation, students occupying Mrak, divided faculty groups writing open letters to the media making UCD look like an embarrassment and the press turning over every leaf in an effort to dig up more dirt on Katehi.

          There was what looks like a quid pro quo between Katehi and Napolitano on this. Katehi says she gives up the profits and Napolitano then said Katehi could stay. Then the other shoe dropped on the internet scrub, a story that, by the way, went international and Napolitano couldn’t save Katehi at that point.

          I think Napolitano did all she could to save Katehi but by the end the pressure was too great and the damage to UC that keeping Katehi would have brought to the institution was insurmountable.

        4. DavidSmith

          I think Napolitano did all she could to save Katehi

          If she did, the following would not have happened.

          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.

          Source: UCD Academic Senate.

          http://academicsenate.ucdavis.edu/local_resources/docs/whats_new_2016/ucd_chancellor_timelinefactsheet_6.21.16.pdf

        5. MAli

          I’m not so sure. Those discussions happened after the internet scrub story broke. A story that went international in 24 hours. By then it was over for Katehi. The last straw had been piled on. I think when Napolitano tried to save Katehi is when the DeVry, Wiley, Saudi University story broke. She did so by getting Katehi to donate the money to charity and Napolitano then expressed support for Katehi in spite of the Mrak sit in and all the legislators calling for her head.

  12. Marina Kalugin

    again I see Ms. Will “not agreeing” with others when she still is not comprehending the campus policies, rules, and who is in charge of what……does anyone care that someone who is still not able to comprehend what was being spoonfed for weeks now “does not agree”…

    people can “not agree” all they want….. that doesn’t change any of the facts and also  is not worth the time it takes to try to “convince” either…..

    those with stubbornly held misconceptions are just going to hold on tighter and even come up with a way to find and start their own thread to “prove it”   -again, so lacking in logic….

    1. DavidSmith

      Not here to convince any individual. I feel that a lot of misconception is caused by lack of understanding of how the university operates and lack of information on a fair evaluation of Chancellor Katehi’s achievement at UCD. By presenting facts and evidence, people who will listen to reason will come to understand. Some never will, but it’s OK.

        1. Tia Will

          hpierce

          Tia… there are differences between “misconceptions”, half-truths, “spun”-truths, lies, etc”

          Just curious about your choice to direct this comment to me when it is apparent that it is a truism which applies equally to all.

  13. MAli

    What do Donald Trump and Linda Katehi have in common? Saying they are donating to charity and actually donating to charity are two different things for both of them.

    In honesty though, I think Katehi should keep her Wiley stock. Donating it was supposed to put out the fire on her moonlighting but then the internet scrub story broke and she got fired anyway. If I had to choose between her keeping the stock or the day job I’d go with her keeping the stock. I think her backing away from donating the stock indicates that the terms of her severance are getting hashed out and will be announced before the end of July when the investigation is supposed to wrap up.

    1. DavidSmith

      Tia,

      MK calling Bidlin “a low-level uneducated person” is certainly very much inappropriate. But there is no need to bring up your “elitist“ hatred either. Education and research in an academic institution are highly intellectual and specialized activities that do require a high degree of education. Just as you would consult a mechanic when your car breaks down, or consult a doctor when you feel ill, pay more respect to the opinions of the academics who are specialized in running the university. It never occurred to you why the faculty are so supportive of the Chancellor while most outsiders on this forum are not? Be humble and do your homework, at least study the evidence/documents we provided. 

      This epitomizes what I see as a major part of the conversational problem and why there is such polarization over this issue.

      And just as you are getting very excited about elitism, my take on the polarization of opinions is a sentiment of anti-intellectualism exhibited by many posters here, who don’t understand the University and don’t want to understand it when opinions/evidences/facts are presented.

      1. MAli

        If Katehi and UC don’t settle then the investigation and litigation proceed. The process gets stopped if they settle. My guess is that they settle. I do agree the whole thing is a huge waste of money. Napolitano could fire Katehi from the Chancellor post at any time so perhaps the entire spectacle and all the high priced lawyers are kabuki that adheres to the letter of the law while the terms of departure are hashed out.  I’m speculating here but we will likely know by the end of the month.

      2. Tia Will

        David

        But there is no need to bring up your “elitist“ hatred either. Education and research in an academic institution are highly intellectual and specialized activities that do require a high degree of education.”

        Please site my post that made you think that I harbor any “elitist hatred”. Since I have taught both for pay in the distant past and as volunteer faculty for many years, I believe that there are some who would classify me as part of the academic “elite”. The fact that I do not choose to do so does not speak to elitist hatred.

    2. hpierce

      Am I getting your persona MAli… master Pugilist (we’ll ignore the recently passed part…)?  If so, are you ‘channeling’ him?  If I’m correct, LOVE your ‘handle’!

  14. Tia Will

    In doing so, you also ignored other evidence that I and others have provided.”

    It is true that I have ignored ( or at least not responded to ) many posts that have involved alleged transgressions of many individuals other than Chancellor Katehi. I have stated my reasons for doing so. My interest is in the situation of the Chancellor and the well being of UCD and its students. I fully recognize the limitations of the scope of my interest and knowledge. I have stated that I believe that if others have also made transgressions, then they should be treated equally and accordingly.

    None of this is relevant in my mind to the suitability of Chancellor Katehi to continue in her current appointment. That is my only concern and interest in this case. I recognize that many have broader interests and am making no comment about the veracity or lack thereof of those accusations. That is the sole reason that I do not comment on what I see as these peripheral issues.

    1. DavidSmith

      I’m not implying any “broader interest” along this line of argument.

      I and others have posted several times direct evidence to show the faculty’s support of the Chancellor and the great work she has done for UCD. For example, the excerpts I posted above (regarding the aftermath of the pepper spray) are from the timeline document by the Academic Senate. The link to the document was posted three or four times by Jerry, and at least twice by me. Your response above looks as if these excerpts were completely new evidence to you, which tells me that you didn’t actually read the document.

      This is why I’m saying that you ignored some evidence/facts when you claimed that you are going to offer a complete picture.

       

      When making a judgement on the “suitability of Chancellor Katehi to continue in her current appointment.” I think it is important, if not more important, to consider what the university faculty (represented by the Academic Senate) are saying, rather than just citing sources from SacBee which I now know has a conflict of interest in this issue and hence a vicious bias. 

      I fully recognize the limitations of the scope of my interest and knowledge.

      Everyone has his/her limitation and I can’t blame you on that. However, it bothers me that when we presented materials that offer new perspectives, you didn’t take the effort study them, yet you felt so righteous to keep posting your opinions.

      1. hpierce

        just citing sources from SacBee which I now know has a conflict of interest in this issue and hence a vicious bias.

        Yet,

        ignored some evidence/facts 

        You going to share your “evidence/facts”?  I don’t have a dog in this game/fight, but not inclined to listen to the ungrammatical postulations/”facts” from a person discharged from a UCD-related facility, now suing in federal court (for damages, I assume), reiterating (ad nauseum?) the injustices done to him, and a carefully worded Academic Senate “document” with little citations to verifiable facts.  Might work for a Liberal Arts major, but not for me… and there is an Admin type (assuming, based on self-identification) who may well be a beneficiary of the former “administration’s” largess/favoritism.

        Just saying…

        1. DavidSmith

          Sorry can’t share it as it’s not in the public domain (ie. things you can look up online)

          “carefully worded Academic Senate “document” with little citations to verifiable facts”

          It was a timeline/summary document. Everything, related to that document, that you want to verify, you can find them on Academic Senate website. I believe all their resolutions and supporting documents are online. So they are all verifiable. If you have doubts, you can go check them out yourself. Search “UCD academic senate”

          But seriously, it would be very difficult for me to continue the discussion if you are in denial of the Academic Senate and the faculty. I’ve said enough times about fact checking, but I understand it’s far easier to post opinions here than reading pages and pages of dry documents.

        2. DavidSmith

          … , but I understand it’s far easier to post opinions here than reading pages and pages of dry documents. And very much off the topic, that’s why I believe a general democracy is never a good system.

          Have a good night.

        3. Marina Kalugin

          I already posted them on the other threads over the weeks…you could just do your own search on just even the Katehi threads.

          one thread I started was removed by DV, but if you take the time to go back and read you might understand some of the documents this time…who knows…

          and, yes, all of the emails which faculty forwarded to me, and which I posted, ARE also on the Academic Senate website..

          I am not sure, however, whether one has to have an @ucdavis.edu email however to view them….

           

           

      2. Tia Will

        DavidSmith

        you didn’t take the effort study them, yet you felt so righteous to keep posting your opinions.”

        How would you know that I have of have not “studied” ?  I will freely admit that I have not read every bit of what I consider Jerry’s side tracks nor Marina’s more colorful departures from the actual issue into the realm of world history and how that proves something about the Chancellor’s current problems. ( references to Gestapo, thugs, nazi’s ). I certainly have read all of the substantive information that you have provided.

        Degree of support does not equal innocence nor should it be cause for exoneration.

        Support for a leader can be due to many factors. It can be because of genuine belief that they are doing the best job possible. It can be because you feel that they are the best person to further academic excellence. But if we are being honest, support can also be provided because a faculty member is getting more money for research, or promoted in their position personally, or just happens to like or be friends with the Chancellor. There are many reasons for support. Not all of these reasons  for support are objective, not all are shared by others on campus, and as I stated as reason for writing the article, not all are in alignment with the Chancellor’s own actions and explanations for those actions.

         

        1. DavidSmith

          How would you know that I have of have not “studied” ?

          Here is what I wrote above.

          For example, the excerpts I posted above (regarding the aftermath of the pepper spray) are from the timeline document by the Academic Senate. The link to the document was posted three or four times by Jerry, and at least twice by me. Your response above looks as if these excerpts were completely new evidence to you, which tells me that you didn’t actually read the document.

          And regarding faculty support, you wrote

          Support for a leader can be due to many factors. It can be because of genuine belief that they are doing the best job possible. It can be because you feel that they are the best person to further academic excellence. But if we are being honest, support can also be provided because a faculty member is getting more money for research, or promoted in their position personally, or just happens to like or be friends with the Chancellor. There are many reasons for support. Not all of these reasons  for support are objective, not all are shared by others on campus, 

          Note that while the Academic Senate represents the faculty, its stance is often not shared by every faculty member.

          The Representative Assembly is elected. Resolutions are passed by voting of the RA. Sometime votes, such as the confidence/no-confidence, go for a general vote. It’s not difficult to comprehend. It’s pretty much like how the congress works.

          http://academicsenate.ucdavis.edu/about/index.html

          I never said that there is unanimous support from the faculty. In fact you can even find some faculty member on this forum who are not a big fan of the Chancellor. But I hope the fact that the majority of the faculty support the Chancellor tells you something. And if you actually study the AS’s documents, you will see some resolutions supporting the Chancellor were passed unanimously.

        2. DavidSmith

          Degree of support does not equal innocence nor should it be cause for exoneration.

          Tia, I’m not here to debate with you over the “innocence” of the Chancellor and never did I say or imply that the faculty’s support of her renders her innocent. Once again, I repeatedly said that we all acknowledge that she had made some “missteps” along the way. The point that I’m trying to convey is that the Chancellor’s achievement outweighs the “missteps” and in deciding whether she is suitable for the Chancellor position, we need to evaluate all aspects.

        3. Misanthrop

          No it doesn’t. Maybe in your view it does but her missteps  piled up until saying she was sorry again and again were not enough for so many, some of them important enough that she had to go. While you may think that only academics should have anything to say about how the university is run in reality that isn’t how it works. On day to day matters yes but when the people who oversee the budget for the UC in the legislature and appropriate lots of money for the university want someone out the Regents take notice. These are not ignorant proles like me they are the duly elected representatives of the people of California some of them educated at UCD.

          When someone repeatedly embarrasses the institution of UC and UCD on a massive and international scale the Regents notice. Katehi’s skills were drowned in the tide of her missteps and she had to go. Your arrogance that only people like yourself are qualified to discern the right path for the university may sell in your social circles but I hope you don’t wear it on your sleeve as you go through your daily life. I just wonder one thing about how deeply you hold these beliefs, are you a lousy tipper too?

        4. DavidSmith

          Misanthrop

          I hold the view deeply that academic institutions should be run by academics rather than politicians. Academic freedom is the pillar of a great university. I find it troubling that you believe otherwise. 

          If expressing my view requires me to “wear it on my sleeve” everyday, I will indeed do it without any hesitation. I’m happy that there is no such a need for we are in a great country where academic freedom is upheld sacredly. As an immigrant I can tell you that it’s not necessarily true elsewhere.

          I couldn’t care less what you or any others think of me. I’m totally fine if you find me arrogant; it doesn’t impact my life. Perhaps you could seek input from the Academic Senate Executive Council. I know great people there that are humble and much more eloquent. But if you think the faculty body as a whole is arrogant and their opinions irrelevant and disconnected, then I don’t really see a point to have a discussion with you anymore.

  15. DavidSmith

    Tia,

    edited
    Education and research in an academic institution are highly intellectual and specialized activities that do require a high degree of education. Just as you would consult a mechanic when your car breaks down, or consult a doctor when you feel ill, pay more respect to the opinions of the academics who are specialized in running the university. It never occurred to you why the faculty are so supportive of the Chancellor while most outsiders on this forum are not? Be humble and do your homework, at least study the evidence/documents we provided. 

    This epitomizes what I see as a major part of the conversational problem and why there is such polarization over this issue.

    And just as you are getting very excited about elitism, I could also criticize the sentiment of anti-intellectualism exhibited by many posters here, who don’t understand the University and don’t want to understand it when opinions/evidences/facts are presented.

    1. hpierce

      Academics are (generally, there are exceptions, as in MIT = Manila (or Mogadishu) Institute of Technology), SME’s… subject matter experts, (translation for the oafs Marianated says anyone except her and her children are), but no way I believe a bio-mechanical engineer has more inherent qualifications to “run a university campus” than someone with an MBA/MPA.  But I’m just an “oaf” with only four sets of earned initials after my name…

      In one of my fields, less than 20% of those who go for it, get those initials… ever…

       

      1. DavidSmith

        but no way I believe a bio-mechanical engineer has more inherent qualifications to “run a university campus” than someone with an MBA/MPA

        Really? You are being sarcastic right?

        But, seriously, can you tell me a single dean or chair, in either a private or public university, higher or lower ranking, that became dean/chair not because of their academic achievement but because they have an MBA/MPA?

      2. DavidSmith

        Also, for disciplines that involve experimental work, could be physics, engineering, agriculture, vet, etc… being a professor, or to be more accurate, being a “successful” professor means that you have to be able to handle teaching, department/college/university service, external professional society service, writing grant proposals, advising graduate students, overseeing the execution of research projects, writing reports, preparing your own evaluation packages, etc…

        In all of these activities, the professor is the one who is in charge of fund raising and managing the finance, personnel, and organization of the lab. It takes a lot of management skills to run a successful lab.

        I often explain this to others by comparing today’s professors with the CEO of a small start-up. The commonality is that both have to manage everything. The difference is that for professors the outcome is successful students, scientific discoveries (papers), and societal impact (technology transfer).

        Saying an MBA/MPA or a politician is inherently more capable of running an academic program, be it a lab or department or the whole university, couldn’t be farther from the truth.

        1. hpierce

          I often explain this to others by comparing today’s professors with the CEO of a small start-up. The commonality is that both have to manage everything.

          Then, there is something wrong with UCD professors and/or the system… maybe tear it all down and start over, or make it completely private [absolutely no public subsidies]… it can be a “start up”.

          Professors should do their research [their learning], and teach [the rest can and should be assigned to others]… had the luck of  actually having some professors, doing research actually teach UG classes when I went to UCD… according to you, that has changed [the other things taking priority]… more is the pity…

          Academic Senate, and its elected proxies [academic politicians] running the ship?  Hell no, if that’s the model…

          Perhaps the current controversy is a symptom of a deeper, malignant, issue…

           

        2. DavidSmith

          hpierce

          No, nothing is wrong. It’s just how it works, because:

          1. Fund raising. You need to write good proposals to win research grants because they are highly competitive. Who, other than the professor, can write better proposals on the subject matter?

          2. Financial management. Who, other than the professor, knows where to put resources so that research activities are run the most efficiently?

          3. Personnel management. Who, other than the professor, knows better the strength and weakness of each of his/her students so that they could be assigned to the most suitable research topic?

          We can go on and on. This is the model that all research universities in the US adopt. It’s simply because doing cutting edge research is a highly specialized activity that very few can handle. Thinking an MBA/MPA can do the management job is a little delusional at the best. Plus, any non-research personnel added to the team means at least $120k/year expense, which is equivalent of two full-time graduate students who can actually produce meaningful research work. 

          One way to change the model is to fund university labs at 2-3 times the average level. Then your professor can have serious support staff and really focus on doing research and teaching all day. Knowing that the State is providing a mere 10% of UC’s budget, you know it’s not going to happen.

          It’s all economics, isn’t it?

          So when I say many people don’t understand university operations, some of you felt perhaps insulted and some perhaps felt that nothing more than common sense is needed. When I say some homework needs to be done to understand, some of you perhaps felt I was arrogant and demeaning. I’m really not. What you have read is a littel live example.

          Academic Senate, and its elected proxies [academic politicians] running the ship?  Hell no, if that’s the model…

          You are developing a little contempt for university professors and the Academic Senate, aren’t you? You believe you know better than the collective wisdom of the faculty? You believe you have a better model that all academics in the United States, past and present, can’t come up with?

          Here is my suggestion. Talk to a few more UCD professors. There should be many in our community. Ask them if what I said is correct. Ask them whether they think it’s a corrupted model. Ask them if they have a better solution.

        3. DavidSmith

          … had the luck of  actually having some professors, doing research actually teach UG classes when I went to UCD… according to you, that has changed [the other things taking priority]… more is the pity…

          All faculty members I know, famous or not, unless they’ve taken on full-time administrative work, teach UG class. What you had is not luck. It’s the norm at UCD.

        4. DavidSmith

          And let me say a few things to all posters here before I call it a day.

          I have lived, worked, and traveled in many different parts of the world. The academic research institutions in the United States is by far the best academic systems in the world. There is a simple reason behind it, academic freedom.

          While you may take it for granted, please just don’t ruin it by your own hand. If you are a conscientious voter, think twice before you say you want politicians run the university, think twice before you say you want MBAs run the university, think twice before you say you want to tear them all down and start over, think twice before you feel your common sense outwits the professors, think twice before you say they are a group of corrupted souls.

          Really, think more and think hard.

        5. Biddlin

          “…you have to be able to handle teaching, department/college/university service, external professional society service, writing grant proposals, advising graduate students, overseeing the execution of research projects, writing reports, preparing your own evaluation packages, etc…”

          So busy!  I’m awfully glad that the Regents are tasked with the organization and governance, instead of you noble, overburdened professors.

  16. Tia Will

    David

    It never occurred to you why the faculty are so supportive of the Chancellor while most outsiders on this forum are not? Be humble and do your homework, at least study the evidence/documents we provided. “

    It has occurred to me that there are a number of differing reasons why some ( not all as you agreed) of the faculty are so supportive of the Chancellor. I listed some of those potential reasons. I also have noted, and you have chosen not to comment on the fact that some faculty and others on campus are not supportive of the Chancellor. That is also for a variety of reasons.

    Again I find it interesting that you feel the need to make assumptions about what I have and have not read, what I have and have not “studied”  and what has and has not occurred to me as though these speculations add something substantive to the conversation.

    I could also criticize the sentiment of anti-intellectualism exhibited by many posters here, who don’t understand the University”

    Yes, you could, and I would join you in that particular criticism when that attitude is encountered. However, I do not pretend as some posters here do that my understanding of the functioning of the university is the only way in which to see it.

    1. DavidSmith

      Well I didn’t make assumptions. I provided my reasoning above twice.

      that my understanding of the functioning of the university is the only way in which to see it.

      Never said it’s the “only way”. Was merely asking you to be more receptive of other ideas. It’s like a doctor tells you eating high cholesterol stuff is not good for your health and he provides the scientific studies supporting that idea, but you insist on eating them anyways because you find them tasty. Is eating healthy food the “only way”? No.

      1. Tia Will

        David

        Well I didn’t make assumptions.”

        You have made repeated assumptions about what I have and have not read and what I have and have not “studied” based on nothing more than whether or not I agree with your conclusions. Those were the only assumptions I was addressing.

        1. DavidSmith

          Tia, here I post for the third time.

          For example, the excerpts I posted above (regarding the aftermath of the pepper spray) are from the timeline document by the Academic Senate. The link to the document was posted three or four times by Jerry, and at least twice by me. Your response above looks as if these excerpts were completely new evidence to you, which tells me that you didn’t actually read the document.

  17. Tia Will

    As the author of the article that has drawn this attention I would like to make what I hope will be a clarifying post. I would like to explain my values and provide examples of what I see as true leadership behavior.

    We have within Kaiser Sacramento a couple of individual doctors who are internationally know for their work in their fields of sub specialization. Each has made many positive contributions in their field of expertise. Each has through their publications, public speaking and various other fund raising activities brought in millions of dollars in research funding. Each is also trained and has performed for years as an excellent surgeon.

    There came a time in each individual’s career when, reflecting on their own strengths and weaknesses, and acknowledging their own declining abilities to perform at the top of their game in surgery, each made the decision on their own to limit their professional activities to those in which they continued to excel. For a surgeon, most of whom love to operate, this takes introspection, courage, and the ability to place the interests of their patient’s above their own. It can be a very painful realization that one is no longer in one’s prime in all areas. But the consequences of not taking this hard look at one’s own strengths and weaknesses can be catastrophic for one’s patients as well as for one’s own reputation.

    I see these individuals as true leaders. I admit to very high standards for any individual who accepts a leadership position. I realize that others may not adhere to my view of what constitutes a leader. But I hope that this will at least clarify my criteria and my perspective as relates to the actions of the Chancellor.

    1. DavidSmith

      There came a time in each individual’s career when, reflecting on their own strengths and weaknesses, and acknowledging their own declining abilities to perform at the top of their game in surgery, each made the decision on their own to limit their professional activities to those in which they continued to excel. For a surgeon, most of whom love to operate, this takes introspection, courage, and the ability to place the interests of their patient’s above their own. It can be a very painful realization that one is no longer in one’s prime in all areas. But the consequences of not taking this hard look at one’s own strengths and weaknesses can be catastrophic for one’s patients as well as for one’s own reputation.

      Great example. To me, Chancellor Katehi is at the peak of her leadership skills to transform UCD and under her UCD has been on a great momentum to become one of the best public universities. For the interest of UCD, we should keep her.

      1. Misanthrop

        We will see one way or another. I don’t think UC is going to keep her as chancellor because although she may be a great technocrat and administrator she lacks some other qualities of leadership that are also important like good judgement. However if what you say is true then UCD’s loss will be some other University’s gain and she will get another job likely at an even more prestigious institution. I look forward to finding out what the future holds for Katehi because it will tell whether your idealism is trumped by my pragmatism.

        1. DavidSmith

          I hear what you say on the pragmatism side. As I said much earlier, the moment Napolitano started the investigation, there was no turning back. I won’t take a bet on the future whereabouts of the Chancellor. She is 62. If she could stay at Davis as Chancellor, she would have another 5-10 prime years to continue her work and truly transform UCD. Starting a new leadership role in another university? I don’t know. If I were her, I’d probably take the settlement (under the condition that UCOP apologizes) and do something more meaningful than battling instigators. I’d quote a poster from a thread a couple of weeks ago, she is here to lead but UCD doesn’t want to follow. Too sad.

  18. Tia Will

    Great example. To me, Chancellor Katehi is at the peak of her leadership skills to transform UCD and under her UCD has been on a great momentum to become one of the best public universities. For the interest of UCD, we should keep her.”

    Which clearly demonstrates how two people when faced with the same set of information can come to entirely different conclusions.

    1. DavidSmith

      Which clearly demonstrates how two people when faced with the same set of information can come to entirely different conclusions.

      Agreed. But it’s no excuse for ignoring/selectively presenting information.

  19. Tia Will

    Agreed. But it’s no excuse for ignoring/selectively presenting information.”

    Equally true for both sides. And also no excuse for trivializing relevant information.

  20. ContextMatters

    The fact is that David (Greenwald) and Tia went after Kathei from the beginning. They were never interested in presenting a news article with evidence from both sides; much of what they have written is not accurate and opinion based. Much of this article by Tia is based on limited information and not a thorough reading of the available material (e.g., her statement on the Cruz report is simply wrong).

    The problem is that the Vanguard went after the Chancellor and then was stuck with that avenue and had to defend it. The real issues are why the Sac Bee, with a true and very substantial conflict of interest (the wife of the Bee editor), was not called out and Napalitano, whose hammer approach to governance of the UC is costing the system both money and credibility.

    That story got left behind by Tia/David in trying to defend their initial attacks. The LA Times had a good, balanced story; they probably took the time to read everything.

  21. ContextMatters

    One more note. Tia asserted in a past post that she taught in both the humanities and the sciences. I have (repeatedly) asked what she taught and when – no answer. It would be very unusual to teach classes in both humanities and sciences.

  22. Tia Will

    ContextMatters

    Parts of your post are correct. Parts are not. I would like to set the record straight.

    1. What I have written is from my personal point of view. I am not a news reporter. I have stated repeatedly and clearly that everything I write is to be taken as my opinion only, except when I am writing within my own area of expertise which is Ob/Gyn, not university administration. While it is correct to point out that I am not an objective observer, it is no news to point out that I am only writing my own opinion and I have stated that repeatedly. Since I am writing my own opinion only, I feel no obligation to write an exhaustive account of both sides of the issue. Having said that, I have acknowledged the good that I believe that the Chancellor has done. I simply do not share the belief that for an individual so highly placed, it outweighs the harm that she has been responsible for.

    2.I have never asserted that I taught in both the humanities and the sciences. I have stated previously what I taught and roughly when in previous posts, but I can repeat. Prior to medical school I was an assistant instructor in English as a second language at a community college in Washington state. While at UCD as a medical student I was one of two teaching assistants for undergraduate anatomy. Every year since becoming a board certified Ob/Gyn I have taught both medical students and residents and I continue to do so at this time. To be fair, you may be confusing my statements about my undergraduate degrees which were in Anthropology and Political Science. I have never taught a humanities class nor have I ever claimed to..

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

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