Sunday Commentary: We Need to Put the Katehi Saga in Proper Perspective

Chancellor Linda Katehi in February
Chancellor Linda Katehi in February

In times of crisis, it is important to put things into perspective.  I am troubled by a comment in the Davis Enterprise, where they conclude, “A faculty position is scant punishment considering the damage she’s done to UC Davis’ reputation over the years.”

While certainly the issue of the pepper spray incident is a black eye to the university on a national front, the latest imbroglio did not help and the resignation again generated national attention, I wonder if UC Davis’ reputation is really damaged.  Here I think the defenders of Linda Katehi have a good point – whether it’s the huge fundraising cachet that the university has, the top programs like Veterinary Medicine or Ag, the emerging World Food Center, the UC Davis Medical Center, or the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) programs – in a way, the UC Davis brand has never been better.

All the other stuff?  Well, that’s happening everywhere.

Last fall, the University of Missouri chancellor and president resigned in wake of protests on campus over the handling of racial incidents on campus.

We had the Penn State scandal and longtime cover up of the Jerry Sandusky crimes.

This summer, Ken Starr, yes that Ken Starr, resigned as Baylor University’s chancellor after the university was rocked by a report that found the university mishandled allegations of sexual harassment and assault.

Then there is the odd story that has emerged out of UC Berkeley that their embattled chancellor Nicholas Dirks has spent $9000 to construct an “escape hatch” in order to flee student protests near his office.  Mr. Dirks has faced strong criticism from faculty and students over his handling of sexual harassment cases, which forced the resignation of the UC Berkeley provost.

“The chancellor should welcome student protests not fear them,” said Michael Burawoy, co-chair of the Berkeley Faculty Association. “The installation of an escape hatch from his office reflects a fortress mentality, in line with the $700,000 fence he had built around his campus residence, also supposedly to ward off protesters.”

All of this suggests that the Linda Katehi saga at UC Davis is not likely to tarnish UC Davis as much as some want to believe.

Here’s the thing – Linda Katehi made a lot of mistakes.  She certainly used bad judgment in taking the DeVry board position as well as Wiley & Company.  She did violate university policies.

On the other hand, the report really cleared her of the most serious allegations.  She did not attempt to intimidate or retaliate against those who spoke out against her.  She did not profit personally or cost the university money through her misreporting of travel funds.  She properly walled off her hiring of relatives.  And she did not misuse student funds.

Instead, I think it is more fair to see that her tenure ended under a barrage of self-inflicted paper cuts that, strung together, formed a fabric that the UC President could not stomach.

As we noted earlier this week – it is another case where the crime might have been survivable had she merely been forthright about what occurred.

So, I think the Enterprise editorial this week got this partly right: “AS IS OFTEN the case, it was the cover-up, rather than the original sin, that sank Katehi. Despite denials to the public and privately to Napolitano that she had anything to do with the $175,000 Nevins deal, it turned out she was intimately involved. In retrospect, it was Katehi’s dishonesty with Napolitano that made her position untenable.”

I also agree with this point: “Napolitano hasn’t handled this well at all. She could have achieved this result in April, considering that the chancellorship is an at-will position. The high-profile investigation, with the attendant mudslinging by Katehi’s critics and supporters, only made sense if she was going to be fired outright for cause. In essence, Napolitano wasted three months and kept the campus and our community twisting in the wind.”

At the same time, I think that the Enterprise overplays the hand when it talks about “the damage she’s done to UC Davis’ reputation over the years.”  As stated earlier, I think she has a much more mixed record than that.  Her defenders will point to the fundraising, the prestige of the university and improved position of UC Davis.

But I think her defenders also have turned a blind eye to some of her failings.  From the start, she has suffered from poor communication skills – whether it was communicating with her advisers prior to the pepper spraying or attempting to remove web-based references to the incident.

As the report lays out, Linda Katehi attempted to minimize her role in the Nevins deal.  She told her boss, President Napolitano, that she was unaware of the details.  She told the same thing to the Sacramento Bee and the Davis Enterprise.

I remember when Ralph Hexter gave his press conference discussing the matter with Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning.  He told me about what she told them at their editorial board meeting, but quickly documents came to the fore that showed the level of her involvement.

I am troubled by the efforts of some of her defenders to minimize this.  There is no getting around this finding.  There is no conspiracy.  There is no fabrication here.  No one on her team has disputed it.

So, at the end of the day, Linda Katehi most likely lost her job because of the pepper spray incident, the attempts to de-emphasize its effects on the university brand – even as the evidence was coming forward that it really hadn’t hurt the university’s reputation – and finally her efforts to minimize her involvement in the social media contracts.

Given the world we live in, we are talking about small, not high crimes, and misdemeanors.  The chancellor made mistakes for sure, but they were not the kind of high corruption that is all too prevalent in today’s society.

This doesn’t minimize this incident, but rather places it in the proper perspective.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

55 Comments

  1. Felicity

    The Pepper Spray Incident itself represented a major assault, not only on the protesters’ physical bodies, but also a major assault in the abstract sense against freedom of speech. The fallout from that was certainly not at the level of a mere paper cut.

    1. Barack Palin

      The pepper spray incident wasn’t supposed to have anything to do with why she was investigated.

      But Felicity, we all know that this was what it was all about….wink…..wink

  2. smokeybandit

    “We had the Penn State scandal and longtime cover up of the Jerry Sandusky crimes.”

     

    We did?  To date there has been no criminal verdict to support any cover up and more than ample evidence that there was no cover up.

  3. Marina Kalugin

    what truly appalled me is the front page article of the DE which confirmed that they have not seen a copy of the 15 page hatchet job the Napo wrote to the Regents…..and yet, they run a full OP-Ed  which continues the hatchet job …

    wow…..really?

    Given that that 106 page investigator’s report wasn’t going to be enough to sink the Chancellor in her upcoming meeting with the Regents , where the Regent’s could have simply reinstated the Chancellor, …the Napo just had to throw in her 15 pages to make sure the Chancellor realized that she will never be able to work under those conditions under that  “woman” aka the UC President…..

    Linda Katehi only kept going to bat, because so many faculty, adminsstrators, alumni and students kept telling her we need her back…

    And, without even seeing the letter that finally caused Linda Katehi to say “FTS”   the DE is doing a hatchet job of their own…. that is truly mindboggling to me…

    and, that is not the end of this story by a mile….stay tuned…

     

    1. Alan Miller

      Linda Katehi only kept going to bat, because so many faculty, adminsstrators, alumni and students kept telling her we need her back…

      That and the $400K+.

  4. Marina Kalugin

    poor “communication” skills….English is not her native language…neither is the culture here…likely she learned quite a few other languages prior to English.

    And, for those who claim to espouse multi-culturalism, that is a sorry thing to poke at.

    Also, she is an engineer….any psychology student will tell you “engineers have difficulty with communication and people skills”   – as a group, engineers are frequently poked at for those things…of course, engineers are not a “protected” group under any law, so of course that is allowed..

    of course, because she is white and from Greece, rather than one of the “minority groups which count”…perhaps that is why such things can be said and done against her????    just speculating…

    1. David Greenwald

      I’m not talking about lack of communication as in a language barrier. You’re making excuses for her here – either she can do what the job requires or ….

    2. Tia Will

      poor “communication” skills….English is not her native language”

      Poor communication skills is not simply about one’s command of a language. It is about a leadership level of communication. If an individual is conversant enough in the English language to be a stellar fundraiser, then surely we could also expect that they could be conversant enough to convey the truth adequately to their superior and new media. If a person is in a field that does not require multiple language mastery, such as engineering, then they certainly should not be precluded from researching and teaching in that field. However, that may be an indicator that they are not the best person to be in a campus leadership position such as that of a Chancellor which is highly dependent upon the ability to listen to multiple points of view, including information that is in direct conflict with one’s emotionally driven fears ( as in the pepper spray incident) and to synthesize conflicting information and opinions so as to arrive at the best conclusion…..which in the opinion of many, including the Reynoso findings, is not to physically assault peacefully protesting students.

      We are not talking about the communication skills of a groundskeeper, or a teaching assistant, or a lecturer. We are talking about the communication skills of the head of a major university. Should we not also be seeking excellence in the area of communication ?

      perhaps that is why such things can be said and done against her????    just speculating…”

      Speculating incorrectly in my view. I am a white woman. I have nothing against white women. I have nothing against individuals from Greece. I have nothing personal against former Chancellor Katehi. I do have an interest in seeing excellence in all critical aspects of the top leadership of our university. When one has to keep repeatedly apologizing for “missteps”, repeatedly defending appearances, and repeatedly “miscommunicating” in order to hide or minimize errors of judgement, then perhaps it is time to concede that the individual in question might just not be the best fit for the top leadership position of a public educational institution.

      1. tj

        I noticed Katehi in the Nugget market a few months before all this trouble erupted.

        She was notable and called attention to herself because she was acting so weird:  Head bent way over, staring into her empty grocery cart.  She obviously didn’t want eye contact with anyone.  She gave the impression she thought she was more special than she actually is.

        Mariko Yamada, Lois Wolk, Helen Thomson, and other well known locals don’t behave that way at the Market, and no one interrupts their shopping excursions.

        Katehi silently communicated a very overblown ego.

        1. Marina Kalugin

          wow…..truly?

          is this an appropriate characterization?   what if she hadn’t slept in days due to traveling?   really, do you know what may have been going on that day?   were the paid protestors keeping her in the ofice 24/7?

          did she know you or was she supposed to know you?

          what an absurd defamation of character without any proof whatsoever of anything….really??  this is gonna stand?

          And,  you are also a trained psychiatrist and can diagnose an overblown ego?

          by walking by someone in a grocery store?   wow

        2. Barack Palin

           She obviously didn’t want eye contact with anyone.  She gave the impression she thought she was more special than she actually is.

          I too have run into Katehi in the Nugget Market on Covell.  That wasn’t my impression of her at all.  To me she seemed somewhat shy and inhibited, like she didn’t want to be noticed and just wanted to do her shopping.  I didn’t take her actions as her feeling  more special at all.  Then again, I never had any axe to grind against her like others.

          Maybe some of you should stop kicking her when she’s down.

      2. Marina Kalugin

        actually, those of us who have attended meetings she led, or briefings she gave,  the convocation, commencements, Academic senate meetings – I didn’t attend those, but I know many faculty who would back up this statement also – Linda Katehi is very understandable and an engaging and caring individual.

        She often opened up her time to staff and students,  and other stakeholders and held office hours at the coffee house, and anyone who chose to “participate” could easily see that she certainly didn’t lack for “communication skills”

        simply more unsubstantiated nonsense by the others who are “speculating”

        and again, I see those who would never be suitable for such a position, cast stones at someone who much higher ranked faculty chose for the position, and supported throughout these awful months.

         

        1. Tia Will

          Linda Katehi is very understandable and an engaging and caring individual.”

          I am confused about how one finds an individual “very understandable” but then excuses her suboptimal communications as based on English language deficits. I have heard the Chancellor speak ( on tape) a number of times and have never had any difficulty understanding her. This leads me to believe that her “misunderstandings” are not likely to be based on lack of command of the language, but rather on a willingness to obfuscate.

        2. Marina Kalugin

          love it when someone who truly cannot see the forest for the trees uses such phrases as ” leads me to think”   really, I rarely notice anything real thinking happening

          tj:  if  you still don’t get it….let me explain that to you yet….again…she was the best Chancellor the UCD has ever had….and I have known them all and “worked” with them all since 1970…  did you not ever see any of those posts?

          and, why do you have an axe to grind…what did she do that causes you to be so rabid against her????

           

    3. tribeUSA

      Re: “any psychology student will tell you “engineers have difficulty with communication and people skills”  –true for some engineers; but not most.

      At the management and executive levels, nearly all these engineers have very good to outstanding communication skills, and most also have good interpersonal skills. This would be true for someone like Katehi; who has written research grant applications and published many articles in applied science journals in english; and presented at conferences and taught her students in english (and of course her fundraising acumen indicates very high english skills); I suspect her english skills are excellent. I don’t know what she is like at an interpersonal level; I can tell you my ex-boss at a biotech company (PhD Chemical Engineering at MIT; top of his engineering class) was gregarious and very personable (friendly strength–yes, his family roots are Irish); pretty much everyone liked and respected him on both a professional and personal level.

      1. Marina Kalugin

        for those who know me, or have seen any of my posts, all of my family members are engineers… including my mother, and all males going back generations as well as my ex, my sons, only sibling etc.  I even studied some engineering formally, and informally I was brought up following my dad, a stucture engineer on his daily work…from the time I could walk…so I know a thing or two from that, as well as know and love many an engineer…

        I was responding all over the place to the garbage about her “poor” communication skills…as that was such nonsensical garbage I couldn’t help but respond in kind……

        whenever there is a stereotype, there is also some truth to it or it wouldn’t become common to discuss… I still have no clue what anyone was getting at when they were attacking her for “poor communication” skills..

         

  5. Marina Kalugin

    and again, I point out that she has successfully completed the mandatory 5 year review as Chancellor,  and regular merit scrutiny…  truly old stuff that most current students were even too young to realize happened and even many of  the students at the time hadn’t even noticed had occurred.

    The campus had come forward so far in the years since, and in large part due to Chancellor Katehi’s leadership, and yet, some just would not let go or move forward into the present.

    1. David Greenwald

      It doesn’t really matter what her five year review said if she then proceeded to lie to her boss. This is a perfect illustration of the point I made that her defender’s cannot seem to acknowledge her missteps here or the severity of those missteps.

      1. Marina Kalugin

        were you there, did you hear the lies?  or is that the Napo’s word against the Chancellors..

        also, for those who missed why she was doing what she was doing with the “for-profit’ companies, I would refer you to the recent thread started by Justice4All…

        likely that info is still a bit fuzzy in some minds, or it was never seen, not that those who are firmly entrenched on the Katehi had to go side would be able to understand the motives and the scholarship fund that were going to be forthcoming as a result of the extra work..

        not to mention ideas to reduce textbook cost burdens on students..

        and, dropped out time…you are assuming that the “lies” if any,  happened after the review?  I don’t know…

        and, PS>   just because there is a signature on a paper, doesn’t mean that the person signing it actually read ii or saw it….for someone of a higher level, one relies on staff/managers to adjudicate the appropriateness and often even  signature stamp is used on behalf of the executive.

        much of the “evidence” is circumstantial at best, and would certainly not stand up in a court of law  – that is if any crimes were committed, which they certainly were not…

        1. David Greenwald

          “were you there, did you hear the lies?”

          She was quoted in the paper. I saw the documents refuting the claims. There were multiple witnesses.

        2. Tia Will

          just because there is a signature on a paper, doesn’t mean that the person signing it actually read ii or saw it….for someone of a higher level, one relies on staff/managers to adjudicate the appropriateness and often even  signature stamp is used on behalf of the executive.”

          If this is true, it is one of the policies that certainly needs to be re-evaluated. As the surgeon in charge, I would never have signed off on a resident or student note operative note without actually having read it.

        3. Biddlin

          “As the surgeon in charge, I would never have signed off on a resident or student note operative note without actually having read it.”

          As the schmo schlepping guitars, I don’t sign anything without reading it. Irresponsible and reckless, imho.

    2. Justice4All

      She should have been fired for her repeated lapses in judgement that resulted in significant public embarrassment for the University and the city. Thats a kind assessment of the situation. How could she think that working for the public, as a public education administrator and working for a for-profit university would be ethical? Or a textbook company? In what universe is that not an inherent conflict of interest? The lack of judgement, and the total, repeated lack of accountability is what is the most offensive to me, as a citizen and a taxpayer. If shes getting compensated more than the President of the United States, as a public servant, why on earth are we allowing her to work elsewhere? Isnt that enough to command a full time public servant? The whole ordeal is odious to anyone who cares about public accountability and proper use of tuition and tax revenue.

    3. Tia Will

      I point out that she has successfully completed the mandatory 5 year review as Chancellor,”

      Another way to look at this point is that this assessment was made by the same individual that the supporters of the Chancellor are now vilifying while ignoring that the recognition of being lied to came after the issuance of the performance review. I find it interesting that the defenders of the Chancellor “trust” a performance review when it is in alignment with their own assessment, but then vilify the same individual when making an assessment that is contrary to their position.

      1. Marina Kalugin

        this time you kinda have a clue, though not the total clue…if the same person thought her performance was fine and then comes out swinging, there is something that occurred later…and I doubt that whatever that is which truly triggered the Napo’s rage has fully come out yet.

        the Napo was observed by others in the office suite and in adjacent rooms back at the end of April berating and yelling at Chancellor Katehi to resign….boy did she go into a rage when the Chancellor refused…

        it likely has nothing to do with any piece of paper which didn’t get signed on time or whatever…

        As I keep pointing out, it is something different…something that the Chancellor stood up to the Napo about…which only got worse when she stood up to her and refused to resign.

        Most here still do not have enough of the real details…and I don’t know what will become public and when.

         

         

  6. PhillipColeman

    The two Napolitano/Katehi camps are still firmly entrenched and will remain so.  Placing this matter in the “proper perspective” will not happen for a few years. The most balanced and accurate historical accounts of major events only begin to emerge after all the passion and bias has been spent, and all available information is revealed.

    One missing piece is the President’s 15-page letter to the Regents. Napolitano wrote this lengthy document after learning that Katehi was taking her cause to the Regents. Guzman and Katehi saw the letter and did an immediate about-face. Katehi resigned, waived all appeal and liability claims, and Guzman did her customary media-spin and took a victory lap. In truth, Katehi and Guzman packed it in, and quickly.

    That letter. It changed the whole landscape of what most people were expecting. A Regent said it was ‘brutal” and said it disclosed much more information than the official investigation. Let’s just wait and see what was in that letter.

    1. Justice4All

      Im not a fan of either Napolitano or Katehi. Katehi ought to have been FIRED a long time ago. If I embarrassed my employer publicly so thoroughly through my own incompetence so many times I would have been told not to let the door hit my ass on the way out. Why is she special? Why does she get to play by a separate set of rules than the rest of us Plebs?

    2. Marina Kalugin

      and, with what you just shared, Dr. Coleman, this is only more confirmation of what I had already shared…that it was brutal….. that the Napo,with her typical ” will get her way regardless of anything else” or “anyone else” who may dare to stand in her ways…

      and that she was “concerned” that the Regents would simply reinstate the Chancellor as that was the only proper thing to do.

      With this hatchet job the Napo wanted to make sure her words took precedence over a 106 page “investigative report”…by many attorneys and at a truly high cost.

      I have seen all too well the vicious Napo personae’s taking down and throwing away good staff – and even some good faculty.

      I have seen managers and supervisors throwing under the bus those who spoke out, tried to make a difference and especially if they happened to stand up to the much dumber boss….

      That happens way more than one can imagine.

      And, the fact that the DE wrote their ope-ed without even seeing it…and are now waiting for “FOA request”…well…that also speaks volumes.

      As I have said and keep saying, this is not over yet, by a mile.

  7. Justice4All

    Its not often I disagree with David, but I certainly disagree here. The notion that corruption ought to be forgiven in this case because this kind of thing is happening everywhere does not make it acceptable in Davis. Nor is the notion that a good deed can erase a bad one. None of us is perfect, but frankly I am sick of the idea that bad deeds can be magically ignored if the person has done some good things. The moral failings of the Chancellor, (or any public official) cannot and should not be ignored by the public, much less the Vanguard, considering its mission.

    In this case, the Chancellor is guilty of repeatedly and consistently showing terrible judgement, and damaging the reputation of the institution, and by extension shaming the entire city. What is ignored in this article, and the larger narrative are some of the other initiatives the Chancellor emeritus embarked on. She cut athletics in a scandalous manner. She is trying to turn UCD into a big ten style school with huge football and basketball programs at the expense of the other sports, which UCD has had a long tradition of success. This has offended many of the boosters and alumni of those programs.

    People can accuse me of being puritanically judgmental, or selectively singling out Katehi. Maybe they would be right to do so. The point is that in a system where this kind of poor judgement (at best) at the highest levels is tolerated or even rewarded is intolerable. She oversaw the dismantling of athletics, the pepper spray incident, she sought out to work on for profit companies like DeVry and Wiley and Sons (their motives are inherently conflicting with the role of a UC Chancellor), she showed the entire world that she doesnt understand how the Internet works, and used public funds to try and scrub the internet in order to try and improve her online reputation, and further embarrassing the institution she is the public face of.

    The excuses of “this kind of thing happens all the time in higher education” is only indicative of a broader systematic problem. One that is going to require a lot of reform, but in no way excuses the moral failures and incompetence shown by Katehi.

    1. Frankly

      Your rant against Katehi is rooted in ideology, politics and tribal pursuits.

      she sought out to work on for profit companies like DeVry and Wiley and Sons (their motives are inherently conflicting with the role of a UC Chancellor)

      And here is evidence of that point.

      1. Tia Will

        Justice…..

        and by extension shaming the entire city.”

        I am in agreement with many of the points that you make. This, I think is needless hyperbole which detracts from your point. I do not see how these problems of the Chancellor and the university can in any realistic way be interpreted as “shaming the entire city”.

        1. Justice4All

          Ill clarify. When I speak to people who are not from the area, often UC Davis is known as pepper spray university. Or, “Isnt Davis home of that Chancellor who doesnt know how the Internet works?” So shaming the whole city may be somewhat hyperbolic, but its not a baseless statement.

        2. Justice4All

          That was my point in my piece – Katehi didn’t embarrass the university or shame the city.

          Well, we are going to disagree on this. She is certainly not responsible for all of it, but she is definitely culpable in my opinion, for reasons that are well known. No one forced her to try and use public funds to scrub the internet after the pepper spray incident, or pressured her into accepting money and stock from DeVry and Wiley and Sons. Shes the public face of the University, and she disgraced herself with her own bad judgement.

        3. Barack Palin

           “Isnt Davis home of that Chancellor who doesnt know how the Internet works?”

          Baloney, I don’t believe any out of towners ever said that to you.

          NWLCI.

      2. Tia Will

        Frankly

        Your rant against Katehi is rooted in ideology, politics and tribal pursuits.”

        What this point ignores is that the inequities of our current system which allows those who are already extremely well compensated through our public educational system to accrue still more wealth are based on a system of “ideology , politics, and tribal pursuits” which consistently favors those who are already at the top of the economic, social, and/or political ladder.

      3. Justice4All

        Your rant against Katehi is rooted in ideology, politics and tribal pursuits

        she sought out to work on for profit companies like DeVry and Wiley and Sons (their motives are inherently conflicting with the role of a UC Chancellor)

        How exactly is this statement rooted in ideology, politics and tribal pursuits? I know people from across the political spectrum that think Katehi ought to have been fired for the same reason. That being that as a well compensated public servant, she ought to serve the public good, and not seek to use her position as a doorway to personal enrichment. Which is exactly what has happened. If expecting my ethos of expecting public servants to serve the public good is an ideology, then I wonder what would not be considered as such. As far as tribal pursuits, I find that statement ironic, considering the source. But by all means, what tribe do you refer to?

    2. Frunobulax

      A note on the “it happens all the time in higher education” defense.  I have two issues with this.  First, that does not matter even a little bit.  The obvious reductio ad absurdum is that “murder happens everywhere, so let’s not prosecute it here”.  But, that is only part of the story.  The plain fact is that this DOES NOT happen everywhere in higher education.  Sure, we can all find a few instances of similar or worse things happening, but this is not something that happens everywhere, nor is it tolerated everywhere.

       

      This is a weak defense, in my opinion.

  8. Tia Will

    The excuses of “this kind of thing happens all the time in higher education” is only indicative of a broader systematic problem. One that is going to require a lot of reform, but in no way excuses the moral failures and incompetence shown by Katehi.”

    This is the one good thing that I can see potentially coming out of this entire mess. Perhaps now is the time for a thorough look at what are now accepted practices, but which never should have been within the context of a public education system. I am hoping for a thorough look at the practices of the office of the President ( not just a financial audit as planned), a thorough review of admissions policies favoring out of state students with lesser credentials than in state students, the distribution of research funds and other forms of departmental support and probably a whole host of other university policies of which I am unaware.

  9. Eric Gelber

    Katehi’s resignation wasn’t directly related to the pepper spray incident but, of course, it was a factor. It was an example of a pervasive shortcoming–not so much of poor communication skills as of an obliviousness, or tone deafness to how her actions would be received by the public and by those whose interests she represents. As the public face of a university, these are important skills for a chancellor to possess.

    1. David Greenwald

      Given you have the pepper spray incident, the social media contracts, and eventually the lying about the social media contracts – I would say it is directly related to the pepper spray.

  10. SODA

    Marina states the ‘lying’ cannot be proven, Napolitano’s word against Katehi’s. I believe the Sacbee has her on tape during her meeting with them stating she had no or little knowledge of the Internet contracts which were shown to not be true once correspondence was presented as evidence.

     

  11. Tia Will

    SODA

    No just trying to keep to the facts. That is different I believe especially in this case.”

    Agreed. Especially since one of the defenses used repeatedly by the former Chancellor’s defenders is that these are common practices. To the degree that questionably ethical practices are systemic, of course they should be acknowledged, called out every time that they occur, and weeded out of our system entirely, which of course, will require admitting that they do occur and not white washing them regardless of the identity of the perpetrator. This is true whether the perpetrator is “down” or at the “top of their game”.

     

  12. Marina Kalugin

    my out o town family and friends have asked “wth is going on?:  why is anyone beating up on the Chancellor?   and what a shame that is going on to her ….and it must be a difficult time for you and others who work there right now..

    those are the kinds of comments I have gotten…from other alums, my ex- sister-in-law who is the mother of my niece who is considering attending UCD and who is an analyst/manager at UCSF

    and others……invariably, the “out of towners” were going WTH?  WTF ?  and why …

    even my uncle’s financial advisor from the Bay Area was like “really …why is the Chancellor being attacked?”

    no-one had an unkind word to say about the Chancellor, while there was overwhelming derision against Napolitano, ex Chief of Homeland Security, and the NSA scandal involving Ed Snowden.

    Most of my friends, colleagues, former UCD staff and managers who are now retired, never understood how a person like the Napo became the President of the UC>>>>…and still do not…

     

     

  13. Marina Kalugin

    that’s nice Alan…truly lovely and shows what an upstanding person you are …keep kicking and I am sure you don’t acknowledge your role in the over $200K in student scholarships which are not gong to be funded this year…nor later years, as all the Wiley money was earmarked for that…and now it is spent on attorneys..

    your true colors become more and more evident and yet one doesn’t even have to do anything.

    it is your own comments like the one above that you will keep kicking until her zipcode doesn’t start with 956….

    I hope you have lots of time to do that, as this is only the tip of this iceberg…

    1. Misanthrop

      Katehi said she is still giving the scholarship money as part of the settlement.

      I hear something completely different from people I talk to about UC and UCD, they are really upset about full tuition out of state students, a program UCD used more than any other campus.

      Also missing from this discussion is the way student protests were handled under Katehi from the time she became Chancellor up until the pepper spraying of students and what these protests were about. Katehi came in during a time of unprecedented budget cuts and tuition increases. While student tuition skyrocketed and faculty and staff took cuts top administrators got huge increases over their predecessors. Under our capitalism system if you are going to turn the screw on everybody else you get paid well. Student protests were treated harshly by current standards but not compared to the sixties. Katehi took a strident position towards these protestors that resulted in Pike opening a literal can of whoop ass on a bunch of college kids who were not hurting or threatening anyone outside of the social order. Their only threat was to the enrichment of those at the top at the literal expense of those at the bottom. Interestingly this wealth pyramid mirrors what has occurred across America in the 21st century with greater concentration of wealth at the top, the middle treading water or falling behind and the bottom ending up with huge and unsustainable levels of debt. The class issues and the use of force to sustain them seem to be getting left out.

      UC is now a public university mostly in name only with around 90% of its budget coming from sources outside of the state budget. Katehi embraced her responsibility to turn UCD into a self funded entity but the pressure on students to take on debt long ago reached a breaking point for many. Katehi’s personal profligacy set a poor example of lack of sacrifice and her willingness to use force against those paying the ever higher tuition poisoned any good her other talents brought to the campus. In the end these social contradictions drove Katehi to make mistakes. Her “Get me off the Google” remark will live in infamy. She then repeatedly lied about her role in trying to suppress negative information about herself and UCD. Another thing that seems to have been lost is that the suppression of information is anathema to the concept of the university itself. Engaging in such conduct, something that is akin to academic fraud, shouldn’t be tolerated at UC and it wasn’t. Finally, Katehi’s obsession with negative writings on her own Wikipedia page is symptomatic of her desire to suppress negative information, Katehi couldn’t get those negative things taken off the page because they were true and at Wikipedia and elsewhere in a free society the truth is always not suppressed.

  14. Alan Miller

    >I hope you have lots of time to do that, as this is only the tip of this iceberg…

    My mission here is done.  She resigned.  We won.  All that is left is for her to roll her body out of Davis.  She will do that on her own.  No effort necessary.  Four years, eight months, twenty days.  The zip code change is just a formality that will be self inflicted, after she sucks one more year on the public teet; she has minor pride, but her greed reigns supreme.  Why does she lie, is it her greed?

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