By Jolene Darensbourg
DAVIS – A statement was released by the ASUCD Ethnic and Cultural Affairs Commission (ECAC) on Sept. 28 to address the fear and anxiety within the Muslim and Palestinian Communities at UC Davis about the new appointment of UC President Michael Drake.
The Ethnic and Cultural Affairs Commission represents the historically marginalized groups, who face barriers and systemic oppression at UC Davis, by recommending policies and programs to help the underrepresented communities in UC Davis.
The statement from ECAC shows their solidarity and support towards 
the Muslim and Palestinian communities who no longer feel free to continue in their activism under the leadership of Michael Drake.
In August, Drake was appointed as the President of the UC governing body, causing controversy and anxiety within the Muslim and Palestinian communities in the UC system due to his past actions as the Chancellor of UC Irvine.
Drake was the Chancellor for UC Irvine for nine years from 2005 to 2014.
In September 2011, 11 students from UC Irvine were arrested and convicted for peacefully protesting towards Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren’s speech in February 2010.
They were using their right to peacefully protest the oppression in Palestine, yet the students were charged by a jury with a misdemeanor for “conspiracy to disrupt a public meeting.”
Each student faced up to three years of probation and had to complete 56 hours of community service.
While these students were exercising their First Amendment rights, there was no support from Drake.
The students were then put on trial, and Drake retaliated by disbanding the Muslim Student Union (MSU) on the UC Irvine campus, which led the Muslim community on campus to be deprived of a critical resource.
The unprecedented act towards the MSU stifled free speech and insinuated Islamophobia towards the Muslim and Palestinian communities.
The suspension of the Muslim Student Union lasted one year, followed by two-year probation.
Even though the Muslim Student Union pointed out that it did not sponsor the protest, they were considered to be “guilty by association.”
The Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine is critical to students because its mission is to have an open environment for students and strengthen Islamic foundations in the Muslim community.
The UC Irvine organization is also known to help set up Muslim students together in off-campus housing to enhance the learning environment spiritually and socially.
The Muslim Student Union also holds daily on-campus prayers for their students, creating a safe space for students to practice their religion freely.
The statement from ECAC also notes that all of the UC chancellors and the UC Office of the President are called upon to provide additional support to the communities across the UC campuses to uphold their rights to protest.
ECAC acknowledges that this is a complete violation of students’ rights and is a threat to the safety of students both on and off-campus.
ECAC also demands that President Drake be held accountable for his decisions and address the communities he mistreated during his leadership at UC Irvine.
The communities across the UC system would also like President Drake and the UC Office of the President to condemn doxing students and to stop the surveillance of them both on and off-campus.
“The Ethnic and Cultural Affairs Commission stands firmly in solidarity with the Muslim and Palestinian communities at all UC campuses who no longer feel safe freely continuing their activism under the leadership of Drake,” the statement reads.
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
I assume the person pictured is Drake? There’s no caption.
That’s the whole of it? They were arrested and convicted for peacefully protesting? You can’t actually be charged for that. I’m cool with your stating why you think they shouldn’t have been arrested or convicted, but at least state what they were arrested for.
Also, what does it mean to peacefully protest towards someone?
So they conspired to disrupt the meeting, but didn’t actually disrupt it because they were peaceful, but were convicted for the conspiracy, the actions of that conspiracy of which they did not carry out, correct?
Retaliated – He counterattacked their attack – of a peaceful protest? How does one retaliate for a peaceful action?
That shouldn’t happen.
Is that a thing? I don’t remember anyone practicing religious services on campus, or where that would happen . . . most especially not an exclusionary space. Is that even legal on a subsidized space?
Notes that they are called upon? What does that even mean?
Doxing and surveillance? That is serious stuff. Why is there no description of any such actions, or who conducted such actions, where, upon whom, and when. There is only the implication that such actions occurred, but only by condemning the totally un-described actions.
Does that mean they will continue peaceful protests despite not feeling safe, or they will discontinue peaceful protests, because they don’t feel safe?
Is there more information or another side to this story?
So now there’s systemic oppression at UC Davis? How so?
As Alan asked above, is this considered legal to have an on campus prayer space? Just asking because I feel there would be problems if Christians had a dedicated prayer space on campus.
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-prayer-in-public-schools-laws.html
“So now there’s systemic oppression at UC Davis? How so? ”
There has always been systemic oppression at UC Davis, it’s not a recent occurrence.
How so? Please explain how that’s occurring now.
The article has a long list – did you read it?
Do you know what systemic racism is?
I did read the article, I still don’t see it. The Irvine 11 in a planned coordinated strategy shut down another’s 1st Amendment free speech on campus which is against the law. Please explain in your own words how there is systematic oppression on the UC Davis campus today.
Systemic, not systematic.
Okay, I wrote systemic earlier in my comment above, spell check must of got me the second time.
Still, please explain how there is “systemic oppression” on the UC Campus today?
Sorry I got distracted by another comment.
Honestly I am not sure I want to put a lot of effort into explaining this because I don’t think I will convince you.
The best definition of systemic racism is: “systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantage African Americans.” Or people of color.
Further defining it: “the formalization of a set of institutional, historical, cultural and interpersonal practices within a society that more often than not puts one social or ethnic group in a better position to succeed, and at the same time disadvantages other groups in a consistent and constant manner that disparities develop between the groups over a period of time.”
Frequent complaints I hear:
Racial profiling both on and off campus
Blacks and Latinos underrepresented
Black and Latino faculty underrepresented
Black and Brown students severely underrepresented in STEM fields
Implicit Bias is a big one
Microaggressions defined as “the everyday, subtle, intentional — and oftentimes unintentional — interactions or behaviors that communicate some sort of bias toward historically marginalized groups.”
Financial pressures
Racial trauma
Stereotypics
More system wide complaints:
* unequal playing fields for all students to participate and succeed
* misuse of standardized tests which exclude students of color
* challenges for BIPOC face when transitioning to college and lack of resources aimed at retention
* BIPOC are more likely to be nontraditional students taking different paths
* Lack of programs to support students emerging from disadvantaged backgrounds
* BIPOC faculty more difficulty getting hired, more difficulty getting grants and other support, disadvantaged in the tenure process
Some interesting research here: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6510/1440.2
David, you do know that whites are way underrepresented at UC DAVIS in comparison with the demographics of California. So much of your arguments hold no water with that fact alone.
You’ve pointed that out every time this issue comes up. What do you believe that proves?
I believe the bottom line here is that DG is a “equality of outcome” kind of guy, and KO is an “equality of opportunity” type of guy. I doubt those will ever be reconciled, as they are completely different views of the world and society.
And yet he apparently has “no problem” with restricting a development proposal to those with a connection to Davis (or UCD). Let alone age restrictions, which further facilitate that outcome.
What’s really funny, is I people seem to have forgotten what I actually said about the DBBP. I said it will not be legal.
In the famous commentary, I wrote: “The irony is that opponents of this project really didn’t need to use the race card to attack the Davis-Based Buyer’s Program…. It’s vulnerable enough on legal grounds.”
Later…
“Here’s the thing – there are real legal questions about the legality of this program. Opponents are criticizing the developer for not putting this into the Baseline Project Features, but it seems likely that is because the city is afraid of its legality.”
It’s amazing how people skew in their mind what people say…
Can you provide a link to that article? I believe there was more than one.
Your statement here acknowledges that you don’t think it was a “valid” campaign issue. I recall quite a bit of criticism from you regarding that (as well as the lawsuit itself).
If you don’t think it was legal, why would you criticize that as both a campaign issue (and a legal challenge)?
Let’s just say that you left an impression (as did some on the council) that you weren’t too concerned about the discriminatory aspects of this proposal, while simultaneously expressing a great deal of concern about discrimination, in other venues.
And in fact, I recall that you justified the program based upon UCD’s increasing diversity. And yet in your comment (above), you’re claiming that they lack sufficient diversity.
So, which is it?
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2018/09/view-dangerous-game-playing-race-card-buyer-program/
“So, which is it?”
It’s not either/ or.
UC Davis is more diverse than the city of Davis. UC Davis is less diverse than the state of California.
Sounds like you’re defending it here (and elsewhere, throughout the article) – as well as UCD’s diversity. You call it “playing the race card”.
But in the current article, you state this (regarding UCD and the city):
So, why is it an issue for you now, but not with a program that would result in discrimination against the same groups that you’re now concerned about?
You’d think that you’d be at the forefront of concerns, especially when you didn’t think the program was necessarily legal in the first place.
Could it be because that developer was also involved with a Vanguard fundraiser/ceremony, for example?
The problem is that you continue to overly simplify a complex issue. Tell me – what would your solution be to diversifying the community of Davis?
You’re deflecting. I’ll assume that you don’t want to answer the questions.
I don’t recall details regarding the developer’s participation with the Vanguard (or the extent), but I seem to (ironically) recall some type of “social justice” award being involved.
I answered your question by clarifying my position that you have consistently misconstrued. Again, how do you propose to diversify Davis?
The purpose of my question was to ask why you’re using UCD as an example of lack of diversity for this issue, but took the opposite approach when defending the Davis buyer’s program (or whatever it’s called).
And no, you haven’t actually responded to that.
The reason I ask you (specifically) about this is because of your claimed, overriding concern regarding diversity.
As far as how I’d “diversify” Davis, the first thing I would do is to not restrict housing to those with a “connection” to Davis or UCD. Low-hanging fruit, as it were.
It seems to me that the negative implications of that proposed program go beyond concerns regarding diversity.
Here’s an earlier article regarding the controversy surrounding your position. Quite a few comments below it, as well.
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2019/02/yes-on-measure-l-campaign-has-unclean-hands-when-alleging-improper-financial-disclosures-by-no-on-measure-l/
Actually you are restricting. The only way you can “not restrict housing” is to build housing – all of which you have opposed. So your policies are making things worse. This is a fake issue for you.
And good job, you’ve managed to take this discussion WAY off topic from Muslim and Palestinian Communities, to Ron Oertel’s obsession with opposing all housing.
Again, you’re deflecting.
With the Davis buyer’s program, you’re referring to housing that will actually be built, and then RESTRICTED to those with a connection to Davis or UCD.
NO OTHER HOUSING has such a restriction – in ANY city, to my knowledge at least.
Not building more housing means we’ve locked in the current structure of the system. That’s your position.
That would certainly be the case if you restrict the housing to those with a connection to Davis or UCD.
But again, the reason I brought this up (here) is because you’re claiming lack of diversity at UCD (in the current article), but took the opposite position in regard to the Davis Buyer’s program.
I realize you’re not going to respond to that, so let’s just let it go.
Keith’s cite to Findlaw omits the rest of the quoted sentence (in bold): “A school violates federal law by setting aside time or space specifically for “prayer,” but that doesn’t mean students are prohibited from praying voluntarily.” The article doesn’t say this was school-sponsored prayer or that it set aside a space specifically for prayer.
But it is a “safe space”, meaning people can be excluded who are ‘unsafe’ by whatever definition the safe-space-assigned group defines. I’m not Christian myself, but imagine if there was a safe-space for Christians who were praying in that space on campus and excluding non-Christians. Saying Christians are the oppressors and therefore are ineligible for a safe (exclusionary) space starts a circuitous and slippery path downhill.
Safe spaces provide opportunities for students who have had similar experiences of racism or of being marginalized, silenced, or invalidated to come together in a supportive setting. Comparing that to the experiences of whites or Christians in this country is to draw false equivalencies. Interesting discussion of the topic, recognizing that there are also potential downsides: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/08/finding-the-line-between-safe-space-and-segregation/496289/
Eric…
History… not all ‘Christians’ were free of exclusion from public spaces in the US… Roman Catholics (predominately Irish, in US history) were excluded too…
KKK had 3 ‘hated’ groups… Blacks, Jews, and Catholics…
Guess which 3 groups were the spearheads of the Civil Rights movement… they had a ‘common enemy’… those murdered in the CR movement, spanned all 3 groups… history… our ‘legacy’…
Bill – Far be it from me to determine who falls into what category. But I wouldn’t equate the historical treatment of Catholics (or the Irish, Italians, etc.) with the ongoing experiences of, e.g., Blacks, other people of color, LGBTQ individuals, or Muslims in the U.S. today.
Nor would I group the collective experiences of (and between) the various groups you’ve listed, into a single equivalent category.
From the Electronic Intifada:
Following the 11 students’ arrests on Feb. 8, 2010, the students and the Muslim Student Union underwent protracted university administrative proceedings at both UC Irvine and UC Riverside which lasted up to eight months. Ultimately, the universities imposed sanctions against the students and the Muslim Student Union and UC Irvine publicly expressed satisfaction with its internal discipline.
The prosecution seems independent of the UCI disciplinary actions so the complaint against UC President Drake about what?
I haven’t had my questions answered by the author. Most especially about the doxxing and surveillance. I don’t think you get to throw something out there that serious without backing it up. I’m not defending Drake, I’m saying that’s a poor way to make a point — one that undermines the credibility of the entire story.
So having read a few articles on the incident, it seems this comes down to – the actions were peaceful since no one was injured, so technically yes – but the actions were also illegal in that taking free speech to the point of hindering another’s free speech is illegal, so the jury findings may have been justified.