Thursday, December 29, 2011
Save the University
UC Berkeley political theorist Wendy Brown offers the best statement I've seen of the many facets of the privatization of the University of California.
Fighting Privatization of the University of California #Occupyucdavis
This is an excellent post by Chris Newfield of UC Santa Barbara on the nature of Mark Yudof's "vision" for the University of California, alternatives to it, and some tactical ideas.
An excerpt:
In short, the administration’s defense of UC’s budget has the same logic as that which all over the Western world is lowering living standards for the 99%. UC leaders continue to envision cuts for the student and employee majority, more control for the corporate minority, and no big university missions for society as a whole. The public university exists always on the defensive, always begging for its health. We’ve lived the whole of the new century under this cloud. This has to stop.
An excerpt:
In short, the administration’s defense of UC’s budget has the same logic as that which all over the Western world is lowering living standards for the 99%. UC leaders continue to envision cuts for the student and employee majority, more control for the corporate minority, and no big university missions for society as a whole. The public university exists always on the defensive, always begging for its health. We’ve lived the whole of the new century under this cloud. This has to stop.
Friday, December 23, 2011
UC Berkeley Faculty Senate Resolutions as a Model for UC Davis #OccupyUCDavis on Police Violence and Chancellor Birgenau
Today I had a chance to read the resolutions adopted by the UC Berkeley Academic Senate after police beat faculty and student protestors at Occupy Cal on November 9th. I thought the resolutions were pretty compelling and might provide a model for the UC Davis Academic Senate which will take up competing resolutions of confidence and lack of confidence in Chancellor Linda B. Katehi sometime in January.
At UC Berkeley, four resolutions all passed by a vote of 336-34. For more information, including audio of the meeting click here.
The first resolution (authored by Wendy Brown, Barrie Thorne and Judith Butler) initially declared that the faculty had "lost confidence" in Chancellor Robert Birgeneau and other top administrators but the authors toned down the resolution before the meeting, arguing:
"our resolution is being misconstrued in two important ways. First, some have misread the resolution as unqualifiedly defending the Occupy Cal encampment and as arguing that students have the right to pitch tents on campus whenever and wherever they like. Second, some have misread the resolution as proposing a blanket “no-confidence” vote on three administrators, effectively soliciting their resignations. Neither of these positions or effects was our intention. Rather, we are concerned about a pattern of violent police responses to non-violent protests (three instances in two years) on our campus, and we are calling on the Senate to bring such responses to an immediate end."
Apparently, the authors wanted to express their lack of confidence in the ability of the administrators to protect free speech and the safety of student protestors but not blanket "no confidence."
Both the original and revised resolutions are below. Three additional ones (one of which expresses "greatly diminished confidence in the Campus's leadership") are also worth reading.
Original Resolution proposed by: Wendy Brown, Professor, Political Science; Barrie Thorne, Professor, Gender and Women’s Studies/Sociology; Judith Butler, Professor, Rhetoric.*
Whereas, Non-violent political protest engages fundamental rights of free assembly and free speech, and
Whereas, Non-violent political protest engages fundamental rights of free assembly and free speech, and
Whereas, November 9th efforts by protestors to set up and remain in a temporary encampment near Sproul Hall constitutes non-violent political protest, and
Whereas, These non-violent actions were met with a brutal and dangerous police response (see, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ&feature=share), a response authorized in advance as well as retroactively justified by Chancellor Birgeneau, Executive Vice Chancellor Breslauer and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs LeGrande, and
Whereas, This is the third time in two years that such police violence has been unleashed upon protesters at Berkeley, with resulting bodily injuries to protestors, student and faculty outrage, a series of expensive lawsuits against the university, a tarnished university image, and a severely compromised climate for free expression on campus;
Therefore be it resolved that the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate:
1. Opposes all violent police responses to non-violent protest, whether that protest is lawful or not.
2. Condemns the UC Berkeley administration’s authorization of violent responses to nonviolent protests over the past two years.
3. Demands that Chancellor Birgeneau, Executive Vice Chancellor Breslauer, and Vice Chancellor LeGrande take responsibility for and repudiate such policing as it occurred over the past two years.
4. Demands that these administrators develop, follow and enforce university policy to respond non-violently to non-violent protests, to secure student welfare amidst these protests, and to minimize the deployment of force and foster free expression and assembly on campus.
Resolution proposed by: David Hollinger, Professor, History, and Thomas
Laqueur, Professor, History.
The Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate of the University of California
hereby condemns the over-reaction of police to demonstrations on our campus
on November 9; formally alerts the Chancellor and those who report to him that
this incident has greatly diminished confidence in the Campus’s leadership; calls
upon the Chancellor to institute special training for police forces employed on
campus to deal with acts of political expression and civil disobedience in the
University and, more generally, to immediately implement the recommendations
of the Police Review Board (The Brazil Report) as issued on June 14, 2010.
Resolution proposed by: Kurt C. Organista, Professor, Social Welfare
Whereas, nonviolent political protest engages fundamental rights of free
assembly and free speech, and
Whereas, the campus has established time, place, and manner guidelines by
which it encourages such activities, and
Whereas, protesters may sometimes engage in political noncooperation which
includes acts of civil disobedience – including the deliberate, open and peaceful
violation of particular laws, decrees, regulations, and
Whereas, there is a clear chain of command ending with the Chancellor, which
implements training and deployment of police to respond appropriately to
protests, and
Whereas, campuses should exercise restraint in responding to peaceful protests
and seek to resolve the situation through dialogue, and
Whereas, we are outraged by the brutal and dangerous police responses against
members of the University community at UC Berkeley and other campuses,
Therefore be it Resolved that the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate
1) calls upon the Chancellor, EVCP, and Chief of Police to officially
apologize to the campus community for the behavior of the UCPD on Nov.
9, 2011
2) calls for immediate revision of policies and practices to minimize the
danger of excessive use of force by the police, and to better train the police
to employ nonviolent law enforcement that respects the rights of
nonviolent protesters
3) affirms its support for the right of free speech and peaceful protest by all
members of the University community
4) affirms its strong opposition to the State’s disinvestment in higher
education, which is at the root of the student protests.
Resolution proposed by: Brian A. Barsky, Professor, Electrical Engineering and
Computer Sciences, and Jonathan Simon, Professor, Law.
Whereas, The “right of the people peaceably to assemble” is enshrined in the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas, Section 9(a) of Article 9 of the California Constitution establishes that
“the University of California constitutes a public trust”;
Whereas, Demonstrations consisting of both explicit and symbolic speech are a
fundamental part of the public discourse in modern democracies and have been
an important part of many social movements both nationally and internationally;
Whereas, Police violence has been repeatedly perpetrated against peaceful
demonstrators on the Berkeley campus;
Whereas, The repeated incidents of police violence suggest that the
Administration and the UCPD and may have adopted a policy of preemptive use
of force against peaceful demonstrators whom they anticipate may engage in acts
of civil disobedience; and
Whereas, The Administration and UCPD appear to have not followed the
recommendation of the June 14, 2010 Report of the Police Review Board (“Brazil
report”) to clarify the proper lines of authority and approach to non-violent civil
disobedience on the Berkeley campus despite this confusion having been
identified in the Report as a possible source of unnecessary violence;
Be it therefore RESOLVED, that:
1. It is the sense of the faculty that the physical safety of campus community
members (including police officers), and respect for their rights of political
expression, dictate that police should not be deployed preemptively with riot
weapons and tactics in response to non-violent demonstrations.
2. The faculty calls upon the Administration to implement the recommendations
of the June 14, 2010 Report of the Police Review Board (“Brazil report”).
3. The faculty calls upon the Administration to immediately clarify the division of
civilian and police authority over response to campus demonstrations including
requests for mutual aid to outside police forces.
4. The faculty calls upon the Administration to make public the specific
conditions under which it is prepared to authorize UCPD (as well as other forces
operating under mutual aid) to use weapons and forceful tactics, including but not
limited to batons, pepper spray, and pressure point grips, against demonstrators
engaged in non-violent actions including linking arms and other forms of passive
resistance to arrest.
5. The faculty calls upon the Administration to announce that it will not authorize
the use of such forceful tactics to prevent or preempt the formation of any
“unlawful assembly” that is composed in substantial part of students, faculty, or
staff, and remains peaceful and non-violent.
6. The faculty recommends that if a demonstration turns into an unlawful
assembly (for example, an occupation of a building) then the Administration
should engage in dialogue, communication, and negotiation as the primary and
preferred approach.
7. The faculty recommends that if and when arrests are deemed necessary to
restore core university functions, the Administration not authorize the routine use
of batons, pepper spray or other weapons and forceful tactics without specific
need to respond to violence by arrestees.
8. The faculty recommends that following any incident in which forcible methods
were used that the Chancellor should convene a public meeting with a minimum
of delay to explain the rationale of the decision to employ them.
9. The Academic Senate shall establish a Senate Committee on Demonstrations
and Student Actions composed solely of faculty members to consult with the
Administration, UCPD and students.
At UC Berkeley, four resolutions all passed by a vote of 336-34. For more information, including audio of the meeting click here.
The first resolution (authored by Wendy Brown, Barrie Thorne and Judith Butler) initially declared that the faculty had "lost confidence" in Chancellor Robert Birgeneau and other top administrators but the authors toned down the resolution before the meeting, arguing:
"our resolution is being misconstrued in two important ways. First, some have misread the resolution as unqualifiedly defending the Occupy Cal encampment and as arguing that students have the right to pitch tents on campus whenever and wherever they like. Second, some have misread the resolution as proposing a blanket “no-confidence” vote on three administrators, effectively soliciting their resignations. Neither of these positions or effects was our intention. Rather, we are concerned about a pattern of violent police responses to non-violent protests (three instances in two years) on our campus, and we are calling on the Senate to bring such responses to an immediate end."
Apparently, the authors wanted to express their lack of confidence in the ability of the administrators to protect free speech and the safety of student protestors but not blanket "no confidence."
Both the original and revised resolutions are below. Three additional ones (one of which expresses "greatly diminished confidence in the Campus's leadership") are also worth reading.
Original Resolution proposed by: Wendy Brown, Professor, Political Science; Barrie Thorne, Professor, Gender and Women’s Studies/Sociology; Judith Butler, Professor, Rhetoric.*
Whereas, Non-violent political protest engages fundamental rights of free assembly and free speech, and
Whereas, November 9th efforts by protestors to set up and remain in a temporary encampment near Sproul Hall constitutes non-violent political protest, and
Whereas, These non-violent actions were met with a brutal and dangerous police response (see, e.g.,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ&feature=share), a response authorized in advance as well as retroactively justified by Chancellor Birgeneau, Executive Vice Chancellor Breslauer and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs LeGrand, and
Whereas, This is the third time in two years that such police violence has been unleashed upon protesters at Berkeley, with resulting bodily injuries to protestors, student and faculty outrage, a series of expensive lawsuits against the university, a tarnished university image, and a severely compromised climate for free expression on campus;
Therefore be it Resolved that the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate has lost confidence in the ability of Chancellor Birgeneau, EVC Breslauer and VC LeGrande to respond appropriately to non-violent campus protests, to secure student welfare amidst these protests, to minimize the deployment of force and to respect freedom of speech and assembly on the Berkeley campus.
Revised Resolution proposed by: Wendy Brown, Professor, Political Science; Barrie Thorne, Professor, Gender and Women’s Studies/Sociology; Judith Butler, Professor, Rhetoric.Whereas, Non-violent political protest engages fundamental rights of free assembly and free speech, and
Whereas, November 9th efforts by protestors to set up and remain in a temporary encampment near Sproul Hall constitutes non-violent political protest, and
Whereas, These non-violent actions were met with a brutal and dangerous police response (see, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ&feature=share), a response authorized in advance as well as retroactively justified by Chancellor Birgeneau, Executive Vice Chancellor Breslauer and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs LeGrande, and
Whereas, This is the third time in two years that such police violence has been unleashed upon protesters at Berkeley, with resulting bodily injuries to protestors, student and faculty outrage, a series of expensive lawsuits against the university, a tarnished university image, and a severely compromised climate for free expression on campus;
Therefore be it resolved that the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate:
1. Opposes all violent police responses to non-violent protest, whether that protest is lawful or not.
2. Condemns the UC Berkeley administration’s authorization of violent responses to nonviolent protests over the past two years.
3. Demands that Chancellor Birgeneau, Executive Vice Chancellor Breslauer, and Vice Chancellor LeGrande take responsibility for and repudiate such policing as it occurred over the past two years.
4. Demands that these administrators develop, follow and enforce university policy to respond non-violently to non-violent protests, to secure student welfare amidst these protests, and to minimize the deployment of force and foster free expression and assembly on campus.
Resolution proposed by: David Hollinger, Professor, History, and Thomas
Laqueur, Professor, History.
The Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate of the University of California
hereby condemns the over-reaction of police to demonstrations on our campus
on November 9; formally alerts the Chancellor and those who report to him that
this incident has greatly diminished confidence in the Campus’s leadership; calls
upon the Chancellor to institute special training for police forces employed on
campus to deal with acts of political expression and civil disobedience in the
University and, more generally, to immediately implement the recommendations
of the Police Review Board (The Brazil Report) as issued on June 14, 2010.
Resolution proposed by: Kurt C. Organista, Professor, Social Welfare
Whereas, nonviolent political protest engages fundamental rights of free
assembly and free speech, and
Whereas, the campus has established time, place, and manner guidelines by
which it encourages such activities, and
Whereas, protesters may sometimes engage in political noncooperation which
includes acts of civil disobedience – including the deliberate, open and peaceful
violation of particular laws, decrees, regulations, and
Whereas, there is a clear chain of command ending with the Chancellor, which
implements training and deployment of police to respond appropriately to
protests, and
Whereas, campuses should exercise restraint in responding to peaceful protests
and seek to resolve the situation through dialogue, and
Whereas, we are outraged by the brutal and dangerous police responses against
members of the University community at UC Berkeley and other campuses,
Therefore be it Resolved that the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate
1) calls upon the Chancellor, EVCP, and Chief of Police to officially
apologize to the campus community for the behavior of the UCPD on Nov.
9, 2011
2) calls for immediate revision of policies and practices to minimize the
danger of excessive use of force by the police, and to better train the police
to employ nonviolent law enforcement that respects the rights of
nonviolent protesters
3) affirms its support for the right of free speech and peaceful protest by all
members of the University community
4) affirms its strong opposition to the State’s disinvestment in higher
education, which is at the root of the student protests.
Resolution proposed by: Brian A. Barsky, Professor, Electrical Engineering and
Computer Sciences, and Jonathan Simon, Professor, Law.
Whereas, The “right of the people peaceably to assemble” is enshrined in the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas, Section 9(a) of Article 9 of the California Constitution establishes that
“the University of California constitutes a public trust”;
Whereas, Demonstrations consisting of both explicit and symbolic speech are a
fundamental part of the public discourse in modern democracies and have been
an important part of many social movements both nationally and internationally;
Whereas, Police violence has been repeatedly perpetrated against peaceful
demonstrators on the Berkeley campus;
Whereas, The repeated incidents of police violence suggest that the
Administration and the UCPD and may have adopted a policy of preemptive use
of force against peaceful demonstrators whom they anticipate may engage in acts
of civil disobedience; and
Whereas, The Administration and UCPD appear to have not followed the
recommendation of the June 14, 2010 Report of the Police Review Board (“Brazil
report”) to clarify the proper lines of authority and approach to non-violent civil
disobedience on the Berkeley campus despite this confusion having been
identified in the Report as a possible source of unnecessary violence;
Be it therefore RESOLVED, that:
1. It is the sense of the faculty that the physical safety of campus community
members (including police officers), and respect for their rights of political
expression, dictate that police should not be deployed preemptively with riot
weapons and tactics in response to non-violent demonstrations.
2. The faculty calls upon the Administration to implement the recommendations
of the June 14, 2010 Report of the Police Review Board (“Brazil report”).
3. The faculty calls upon the Administration to immediately clarify the division of
civilian and police authority over response to campus demonstrations including
requests for mutual aid to outside police forces.
4. The faculty calls upon the Administration to make public the specific
conditions under which it is prepared to authorize UCPD (as well as other forces
operating under mutual aid) to use weapons and forceful tactics, including but not
limited to batons, pepper spray, and pressure point grips, against demonstrators
engaged in non-violent actions including linking arms and other forms of passive
resistance to arrest.
5. The faculty calls upon the Administration to announce that it will not authorize
the use of such forceful tactics to prevent or preempt the formation of any
“unlawful assembly” that is composed in substantial part of students, faculty, or
staff, and remains peaceful and non-violent.
6. The faculty recommends that if a demonstration turns into an unlawful
assembly (for example, an occupation of a building) then the Administration
should engage in dialogue, communication, and negotiation as the primary and
preferred approach.
7. The faculty recommends that if and when arrests are deemed necessary to
restore core university functions, the Administration not authorize the routine use
of batons, pepper spray or other weapons and forceful tactics without specific
need to respond to violence by arrestees.
8. The faculty recommends that following any incident in which forcible methods
were used that the Chancellor should convene a public meeting with a minimum
of delay to explain the rationale of the decision to employ them.
9. The Academic Senate shall establish a Senate Committee on Demonstrations
and Student Actions composed solely of faculty members to consult with the
Administration, UCPD and students.
#UCDavis Academic Senate to vote on opposing ballots expressing confidence and lack of confidence in Chancellor #Katehi #OccupyUCDavis
This message provides notice of two impending ballots, as required by Davis Division Bylaw 17: http://academicsenate.ucdavis.edu/cerj/manual/dd_bylaws.cfm#17-. You have received this notice as a voting member of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate. The Davis Division received at least 50 valid signatures with each petition, requiring initiation of a formal notice and electronic ballot. More information, including the method for gathering pro and con statements and the voting period, will be distributed on January 9, 2012. The petitions are summarized below:
1) Petition received on December 6, 2011, requests a vote regarding a lack of confidence in the leadership of Chancellor Katehi, with the result of the vote to be communicated to the Board of Regents and UC President.
2) Petition received on December 15, 2011, requests a vote regarding 1) condemnation of both the dispatch of police and use of excessive force in response to non-violent protests on November 18, 2011; 2) opposing violent police response to non-violent protests on campus; 3) demanding that police deployment against protestors be considered only after all reasonable efforts have been exhausted and with direct consultation with Academic Senate leadership; 4) acceptance of Chancellor Katehi's apology; 5) expression of confidence in Chancellor Katehi's leadership and efforts to place UC Davis among the top public universities in the nation.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Nathan Brown calls for #Katehi's Resignation Again #OccupyUCdavis
Professor Nathan Brown of the UC Davis English Department, the first member of the faculty to call for Chancellor Katehi's resignation, recently published another such call in the Davis Enterprise. He lists an impressive number of individuals and organizations that have joined him in this call. Several commenters note that this only a small minority of the faculty. They also note that Board of the Davis Faculty Association (of which Brown is a member) called for the Chancellor's resignation without consulting its members and that when it did consult its members, a majority did not support the Board's action. I made similar points about faculty opinion on Katehi and about the DFA in earlier posts. By the same token, only a minority of the faculty (albeit a larger one) have expressed confidence in Katehi. Most faculty have not yet taken a public position. The Academic Senate (the body representing the Faculty) will vote on two ballots--one expressing confidence and the other expressing lack of confidence in the Chancellor in January or February.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
#occupyucdavis protestors are not dirty, drug-addled potential rapists after all!
Friday, December 16, 2011
UC Davis: Protestors are Pigs and Druggies!
The University's official organ, Dateline, ran an inflammatory and unintentionally hilarious article today that belies the Chancellor's pledge to enter into a respectful dialogue with the protestors. It bemoans the costs of cleaning up after the dirty protestors, the inconvenience of staff and students, and employees' fears of sexual assault. My favorite parts are a picture of an empty wine bottle (Barefoot Winery--I guess the 99 percent can't afford Mondavi) and complaints about lingering body odor.
Update: UC Davis news service changes its tune.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Some ideas about the struggle to fund Higher Ed in California
Tonight I was at the northern California meeting of the Scholars Strategy Network. A couple of ideas struck me as especially useful.
1. There is a reasonable chance that the Democrats could win a 2/3 majority in the 2012 California legislative elections, making it possible for them to pass tax increases to fund higher education (if pressured enough).
2.Progressive UC faculty and staff should start a PAC to defeat legislators who don't support higher education.
3. The PAC and the student movement should target legislators with universities in their district.
4. The UC administration has a very narrow view of politics. It is focused on lobbying legislators for more funding (and is essentially resigned to failing at that) rather than on leading a political movement that can elect a 2/3 Democratic majority in the legislature. One demand to make of the regents and the embattled chancellors (Birgenau and Katehi) is that they step up and help lead such a movement. Refund California has made a similar demand--that the regents pledge support for a tax increase on the rich to fund higher education.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Strategic Advice from Louis Warren
UC Davis History Professor Louis Warren gives some good advice to the UC student movement. I especially like his point that with the recent redistricting of California, the Democrats may be able to achieve a 2/3 majority in both houses of the legislature in the 2012 election--enabling them to raise taxes to fund education (if pressured enough). This has been impossible up to now because Prop 13 requires a 2/3 majority for raising taxes and Republicans have opposed any and all tax increases. I also like his suggested slogan for approaching legislators (most of whom went to public colleges): "We want the same deal you got!" (an affordable and high quality public education).
California's Direct Democracy Troubles
This is a great piece on the idiocy of ballot initiatives in California. Drop those F-bombs John Burton! Direct Democracy Troubles - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 12/05/11
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Obama's Inequality Speech in Kansas-Wow!
Obama's Inequality Speech in Kansas
We simply cannot return to this brand of “you're on your own” economics if we're serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. (Applause.) We know that it doesn't result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future. We know it doesn't result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that's enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.
Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year. I'm not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars. I'm saying people who make a million dollars every single year. For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6 percent.
Now, this kind of inequality -- a level that we haven't seen since the Great Depression -- hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country. That's why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made. It's also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.
Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. (Applause.) It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them, that our elected representatives aren't looking out for the interests of most Americans.
But there's an even more fundamental issue at stake. This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that's at the very heart of America: that this is a place where you can make it if you try. We tell people -- we tell our kids -- that in this country, even if you're born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class. We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. That's why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.
We simply cannot return to this brand of “you're on your own” economics if we're serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. (Applause.) We know that it doesn't result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future. We know it doesn't result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that's enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.
Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year. I'm not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars. I'm saying people who make a million dollars every single year. For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6 percent.
Now, this kind of inequality -- a level that we haven't seen since the Great Depression -- hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country. That's why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made. It's also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.
Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. (Applause.) It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them, that our elected representatives aren't looking out for the interests of most Americans.
But there's an even more fundamental issue at stake. This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that's at the very heart of America: that this is a place where you can make it if you try. We tell people -- we tell our kids -- that in this country, even if you're born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class. We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. That's why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.
Can Newt Do It?
I'm starting to think Newt might become the nominee: Ed Kilgore: The GOP Establishment Hates Newt. He’s Going To Win Anyway. | The New Republic
Monday, December 12, 2011
Majority of Davis Faculty Association (DFA) opposes DFA Board's call for Katehi's Resignation
In an earlier post, I noted that the Davis Faculty Association (DFA) Board had called for Chancellor Katehi's resignation the day after the pepper spraying without polling its 145 members (including myself) and that some members felt that it should have done so first. Many members were also upset that the media failed to distinguish between the position of the DFA board and the DFA membership and, even worse, implied that the DFA represented "the faculty" rather than a mere ten percent of the faculty (which is actually represented by the Academic Senate). In my view, both the DFA and the Academic Senate should have disabused the press of this notion. In response to this discontent, the DFA begin surveying its members on November 23 (five days after November 18). And yesterday (three weeks after November 18) the DFA Board released the results: Only 45% of members responded and, of those, the majority opposed the DFA's call for Katehi's resignation.
DFA board chair Scott Shershow's letter reporting the results is below. Shershow reports that the Board's decision to ask for Katehi's resignation was not unanimous. He also notes that three members of the Board have recently resigned and two have been replaced by new members appointed by the Board. At least one of these resignations, that of Board chair (at the time), Bob Rucker, was related to Rucker's opposition to the Board's call for Katehi's resignation. Though Rucker resigned three weeks ago, the Board only informed the membership of this resignation yesterday. And only in the most indirect way: Shershow does not name Rucker as one of the Board members who resigned and does not reveal that his resignation was prompted the DFA statement on Katehi.
None of this is very democratic or transparent, especially when compared with the inspiring example of the Occupy General Assemblies.
----------------------
Letter from DFA Board Chair Scott Shershow
On November 19, 2011, in the immediate aftermath of the pepper-spraying of non-violent UC Davis students protesting tuition increases, the DFA board issued a statement calling for the immediate resignation of Chancellor Katehi, and calling for an end to “the practice of forcibly removing non-violent student, faculty, staff, and community protestors by police.”
http://ucdfa.org/2011/11/19/dfa-board-calls-for-katehis-resignation/
In the last two weeks, we surveyed the DFA membership for their opinions of the board’s action. Sixty-four members responded (out of a total membership of 145). On the first question, regarding our call for an end to the policy of using the UCD police to suppress demonstrators, 58 members approved and 4 did not approve. On the second question, regarding our call for the Chancellor’s resignation, 34 members did not approve, and 29 approved. (A few respondents did not answer both questions.) The opinions expressed in the comment portion of the survey varied widely. Some members expressed enthusiastic support for the Board’s action, praising the DFA for assuming a leadership role in this pressing issue. Some others expressed strong disapproval of the Board. In particular, some members claimed the Board’s decision was “premature,” suggested that the membership ought to have been surveyed first, or noted the fact that some media outlets reported that this was an action of the DFA in general.
Several members asked for more information about the Board’s process. It should be noted that the DFA acts by majority vote of its Board in accordance with the organization’s by-laws. In this specific case, on the Saturday following the pepper spray incident, the Board debated its response via email. A majority voted to release the statement on the DFA website, in response to what we deemed an extremely urgent and quickly-evolving situation.
In making this decision, the Board majority took into strong consideration the initial statement of Chancellor Katehi in which she blamed the protestors for the violence, as well as her second statement in which she acknowledged ordering in the police. We also took into consideration a similar, less publicized event that took place in 2009 where UCD police in riot gear were sent in to Mrak Hall to remove peaceful protestors of tuition increases and faculty and staff furloughs, resulting in several injuries and 52 arrests.
http://www.kcra.com/education/21669598/detail.html
Finally, we were especially mindful of the brutalization of students and faculty at another peaceful demonstration at UC Berkeley nine days earlier. In the wake of this event, it seemed to us that the Chancellor had every reason to anticipate something similar here, and that, under these circumstances, her decision to order armed police onto the campus in the context of a peaceful demonstration was absolutely unacceptable.
The DFA Board’s action, was, to our knowledge, the first explicit statement of faculty solidarity with the students involved, and was portrayed in the initial wave of press reports as representing faculty support for their students. Some reports simply ascribed the statement to “the DFA,” whereas the statement itself clearly notes that it comes from “the board of the DFA.” It should be noted, however, that according to our by-laws, the elected board does have the duty to act for the Association.
The Board has met twice to evaluate developments since its statement on November 19. A majority continues to stand by its initial statement to uphold its support for the student movement in general. We are not encouraged by the Chancellor’s statements and apologies, which appear to have shifted according to the needs of the moment, nor by the revelation of a new Chancellor's "advisory board" filled with corporate CEOs. Chancellor Katehi has already publicly stated that she is fully responsible for the pepper-spraying incident. We agree, and therefore continue to call for her resignation.
DFA board members are elected at a yearly election in the spring, in accordance with the bylaws. Two current members were appointed by the board to fill two vacancies caused by two of three recent resignations. The board wishes to fill the remaining vacancy, and we encourage any member who wishes to help steer future board decisions to nominate him or herself.
DFA board chair Scott Shershow's letter reporting the results is below. Shershow reports that the Board's decision to ask for Katehi's resignation was not unanimous. He also notes that three members of the Board have recently resigned and two have been replaced by new members appointed by the Board. At least one of these resignations, that of Board chair (at the time), Bob Rucker, was related to Rucker's opposition to the Board's call for Katehi's resignation. Though Rucker resigned three weeks ago, the Board only informed the membership of this resignation yesterday. And only in the most indirect way: Shershow does not name Rucker as one of the Board members who resigned and does not reveal that his resignation was prompted the DFA statement on Katehi.
None of this is very democratic or transparent, especially when compared with the inspiring example of the Occupy General Assemblies.
----------------------
Letter from DFA Board Chair Scott Shershow
On November 19, 2011, in the immediate aftermath of the pepper-spraying of non-violent UC Davis students protesting tuition increases, the DFA board issued a statement calling for the immediate resignation of Chancellor Katehi, and calling for an end to “the practice of forcibly removing non-violent student, faculty, staff, and community protestors by police.”
http://ucdfa.org/2011/11/19/dfa-board-calls-for-katehis-resignation/
In the last two weeks, we surveyed the DFA membership for their opinions of the board’s action. Sixty-four members responded (out of a total membership of 145). On the first question, regarding our call for an end to the policy of using the UCD police to suppress demonstrators, 58 members approved and 4 did not approve. On the second question, regarding our call for the Chancellor’s resignation, 34 members did not approve, and 29 approved. (A few respondents did not answer both questions.) The opinions expressed in the comment portion of the survey varied widely. Some members expressed enthusiastic support for the Board’s action, praising the DFA for assuming a leadership role in this pressing issue. Some others expressed strong disapproval of the Board. In particular, some members claimed the Board’s decision was “premature,” suggested that the membership ought to have been surveyed first, or noted the fact that some media outlets reported that this was an action of the DFA in general.
Several members asked for more information about the Board’s process. It should be noted that the DFA acts by majority vote of its Board in accordance with the organization’s by-laws. In this specific case, on the Saturday following the pepper spray incident, the Board debated its response via email. A majority voted to release the statement on the DFA website, in response to what we deemed an extremely urgent and quickly-evolving situation.
In making this decision, the Board majority took into strong consideration the initial statement of Chancellor Katehi in which she blamed the protestors for the violence, as well as her second statement in which she acknowledged ordering in the police. We also took into consideration a similar, less publicized event that took place in 2009 where UCD police in riot gear were sent in to Mrak Hall to remove peaceful protestors of tuition increases and faculty and staff furloughs, resulting in several injuries and 52 arrests.
http://www.kcra.com/education/21669598/detail.html
Finally, we were especially mindful of the brutalization of students and faculty at another peaceful demonstration at UC Berkeley nine days earlier. In the wake of this event, it seemed to us that the Chancellor had every reason to anticipate something similar here, and that, under these circumstances, her decision to order armed police onto the campus in the context of a peaceful demonstration was absolutely unacceptable.
The DFA Board’s action, was, to our knowledge, the first explicit statement of faculty solidarity with the students involved, and was portrayed in the initial wave of press reports as representing faculty support for their students. Some reports simply ascribed the statement to “the DFA,” whereas the statement itself clearly notes that it comes from “the board of the DFA.” It should be noted, however, that according to our by-laws, the elected board does have the duty to act for the Association.
The Board has met twice to evaluate developments since its statement on November 19. A majority continues to stand by its initial statement to uphold its support for the student movement in general. We are not encouraged by the Chancellor’s statements and apologies, which appear to have shifted according to the needs of the moment, nor by the revelation of a new Chancellor's "advisory board" filled with corporate CEOs. Chancellor Katehi has already publicly stated that she is fully responsible for the pepper-spraying incident. We agree, and therefore continue to call for her resignation.
DFA board members are elected at a yearly election in the spring, in accordance with the bylaws. Two current members were appointed by the board to fill two vacancies caused by two of three recent resignations. The board wishes to fill the remaining vacancy, and we encourage any member who wishes to help steer future board decisions to nominate him or herself.
Occupy# Strategy
Via John Hall, Stanley Rogouski's insightful assessment of the tactics and strategies of Occupy Wall Street.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Tom Hayden: Time to End the Pepper-Spray Spree
Talk at The Avid Reader, 16th and Broadway, Sacramento
7 pm Tuesday, Dec. 13
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
No Confidence Letter from 77 faculty published in Davis Enterprise
And a commenter suggests that signers of the pro and anti Katehi letters should face off in a mean game of dodge ball...
We, the undersigned UC Davis faculty, are compelled by evidence available now to publicly state we have no confidence in the ability of Chancellor Linda Katehi to lead us forward. In our view, the Nov. 18 events and their aftermath have overwhelmed her effectiveness despite her previous accomplishments.
Chancellor Katehi showed poor judgment before the pepper-spray incident by sending the police to remove tents without first personally engaging the Occupy UC Davis students; in so doing, she ignored alternative models for positively moving forward with the activists, as exemplified by actions at Duke and Columbia, or more recently with Occupy San Francisco. She displayed a dangerous ignorance or disregard for the potential for violence given brutal police action against Occupy protests at UC Berkeley, and in Oakland and other cities.
After the incident, following a halting progression of public statements, she claimed to accept responsibility with her words, but in deed distanced herself by directing blame and questions to the police and a vice chancellor. Additionally, the stated rationale to remove the tents (student safety) is belied by more than a week of peaceful, safe encampment.
Finally, the pepper-spray incident has triggered an undeniable international storm of negative discussion and images of the campus and chancellor. This makes her role as chief public spokesperson for the university difficult at best. In particular, we believe she lacks credibility to advocate for the Occupy students’ legitimate concerns (accessible, affordable quality university education without crushing student debt and better post-baccalaureate economic opportunity).
Although we know many of our faculty colleagues continue to back the chancellor while the investigations are under way, we are compelled by the evidence available now and support the pending submission of a petition to the Davis Academic Senate calling for a formal vote of no confidence in her leadership.
Signatures
We, the undersigned UC Davis faculty, are compelled by evidence available now to publicly state we have no confidence in the ability of Chancellor Linda Katehi to lead us forward. In our view, the Nov. 18 events and their aftermath have overwhelmed her effectiveness despite her previous accomplishments.
Chancellor Katehi showed poor judgment before the pepper-spray incident by sending the police to remove tents without first personally engaging the Occupy UC Davis students; in so doing, she ignored alternative models for positively moving forward with the activists, as exemplified by actions at Duke and Columbia, or more recently with Occupy San Francisco. She displayed a dangerous ignorance or disregard for the potential for violence given brutal police action against Occupy protests at UC Berkeley, and in Oakland and other cities.
After the incident, following a halting progression of public statements, she claimed to accept responsibility with her words, but in deed distanced herself by directing blame and questions to the police and a vice chancellor. Additionally, the stated rationale to remove the tents (student safety) is belied by more than a week of peaceful, safe encampment.
Finally, the pepper-spray incident has triggered an undeniable international storm of negative discussion and images of the campus and chancellor. This makes her role as chief public spokesperson for the university difficult at best. In particular, we believe she lacks credibility to advocate for the Occupy students’ legitimate concerns (accessible, affordable quality university education without crushing student debt and better post-baccalaureate economic opportunity).
Although we know many of our faculty colleagues continue to back the chancellor while the investigations are under way, we are compelled by the evidence available now and support the pending submission of a petition to the Davis Academic Senate calling for a formal vote of no confidence in her leadership.
Signatures
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Precarious Citizenship and the Fight for Public Education
Evelyn Nakano Glenn, UC-Berkeley
Professor of Ethnic and Asian American Studies & former President of the American Sociological Association (2010)
Thursday, December 8, 2011, 10:30-12:00
Andrews Conference Room, SS&H 2203
Refreshments starting from 10:00am
RSVP: mudge@ucdavis.edu
Under neoliberalism, economic precarity has become widespread, making "citizenship" (broadly defined) precarious for major segments of the population. Precarity of substantive rights can and has spurred counter movements that assert alternative more expansive concepts of belonging—including the contemporary fight for public education in California.
Professor Glenn's talk will deal with some of the most pressing issues in today's politics that are now so visible right here on the UC-Davis campus: economic insecurity, citizenship struggles, new social movements and the future of public education. Please join us!
Brief bio:
Evelyn Nakano Glenn is Professor of Gender & Women's Studies and Ethnic Studies and Founding Director of the Center for Race and Gender at the University of California, Berkeley. She served as President of the American Sociological Association in 2009-10. She is the author of Forced to Care: Race, Gender and Coercive Labor (Harvard University Press, 2010); Shades of Difference: Why Skin Color Matters (Stanford University Press, 2009) and Unequal Freedom, How Race and Gender Shaped American Citizenship and Labor (Harvard University Press, 2002). Professor Glenn was presented with the 2005 Jessie Bernard Award by the American Sociological Association for "scholarly work that has enlarged the horizons of sociology to encompass fully the role of women in society." She was named the 2007 Feminist Lecturer by the Sociologists for Women in Society.
Professor of Ethnic and Asian American Studies & former President of the American Sociological Association (2010)
Thursday, December 8, 2011, 10:30-12:00
Andrews Conference Room, SS&H 2203
Refreshments starting from 10:00am
RSVP: mudge@ucdavis.edu
Under neoliberalism, economic precarity has become widespread, making "citizenship" (broadly defined) precarious for major segments of the population. Precarity of substantive rights can and has spurred counter movements that assert alternative more expansive concepts of belonging—including the contemporary fight for public education in California.
Professor Glenn's talk will deal with some of the most pressing issues in today's politics that are now so visible right here on the UC-Davis campus: economic insecurity, citizenship struggles, new social movements and the future of public education. Please join us!
Brief bio:
Evelyn Nakano Glenn is Professor of Gender & Women's Studies and Ethnic Studies and Founding Director of the Center for Race and Gender at the University of California, Berkeley. She served as President of the American Sociological Association in 2009-10. She is the author of Forced to Care: Race, Gender and Coercive Labor (Harvard University Press, 2010); Shades of Difference: Why Skin Color Matters (Stanford University Press, 2009) and Unequal Freedom, How Race and Gender Shaped American Citizenship and Labor (Harvard University Press, 2002). Professor Glenn was presented with the 2005 Jessie Bernard Award by the American Sociological Association for "scholarly work that has enlarged the horizons of sociology to encompass fully the role of women in society." She was named the 2007 Feminist Lecturer by the Sociologists for Women in Society.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Chancellor Katehi and the Faculty
One noteworthy aspect of Tuesday’s Town Hall meeting with Faculty and Staff was that many of the speakers expressed support for Chancellor Katehi and rejected calls for her resignation. Entomology Professor Walter Leal presented an open letter to that effect, which was signed by over 200 faculty members and published in the Davis Enterprise this morning.
Prior to Tuesday, many news accounts claimed that the UC Davis Faculty sought Chancellor Katehi’s resignation. In fact, only some of the faculty, and far less than the majority, have made such demands—the English Department (40 members), some members of the Physics department (31 of 50), and the 11-member Board of the Davis Faculty Association (DFA). This amounts to approximately 80 faculty out of the approximately 1400 faculty at UC Davis. The DFA does not represent the whole faculty. It is a voluntary membership organization of approximately 120 members (less than 10 percent of the faculty). Few, if any, news accounts noted this--most assumed or implied that the DFA represented the entire faculty. Moreover, the Board’s statement represented the views of the Board only (and was not unanimous)—the membership was not polled. Most news accounts failed to distinguish between the position of the association’s Board and that of its members. (I am a member of the association, but do not support calls for the Chancellor’s resignation at this time). On Wednesday, November 23 (5 days after the pepper spray incident), the DFA finally polled its members. This poll will be complete on December 7. Some DFA members have questioned the Board’s haste in calling for the Chancellor's resignation, and its failure to consult the DFA members first.
The body that does represent the entire faculty is the Academic Senate. Its Representative Assembly will hold a special meeting with Katehi in the Mondavi Center tomorrow morning. Some faculty members are circulating a letter to the chair of the Academic Senate calling for a vote of “no confidence” in Katehi. Fifty signatures are required for such a vote to occur before February (the next regularly scheduled meeting of the faculty Senate). And even if they get the signatures (which they probably will), the vote will not take place until January. I am one of the signatories, not because I am ready to vote for the motion, but because I would like there to be a vote.
Finally, several departments (including mine) have issued statements condemning the use of pepper spray and asking for an investigation, but stopping short of demanding Katehi’s resignation at this time.
UPDATE: A colleague and a student suggested that I clarify my position on the no-confidence resolution because it seems contradictory.
Prior to Tuesday, many news accounts claimed that the UC Davis Faculty sought Chancellor Katehi’s resignation. In fact, only some of the faculty, and far less than the majority, have made such demands—the English Department (40 members), some members of the Physics department (31 of 50), and the 11-member Board of the Davis Faculty Association (DFA). This amounts to approximately 80 faculty out of the approximately 1400 faculty at UC Davis. The DFA does not represent the whole faculty. It is a voluntary membership organization of approximately 120 members (less than 10 percent of the faculty). Few, if any, news accounts noted this--most assumed or implied that the DFA represented the entire faculty. Moreover, the Board’s statement represented the views of the Board only (and was not unanimous)—the membership was not polled. Most news accounts failed to distinguish between the position of the association’s Board and that of its members. (I am a member of the association, but do not support calls for the Chancellor’s resignation at this time). On Wednesday, November 23 (5 days after the pepper spray incident), the DFA finally polled its members. This poll will be complete on December 7. Some DFA members have questioned the Board’s haste in calling for the Chancellor's resignation, and its failure to consult the DFA members first.
The body that does represent the entire faculty is the Academic Senate. Its Representative Assembly will hold a special meeting with Katehi in the Mondavi Center tomorrow morning. Some faculty members are circulating a letter to the chair of the Academic Senate calling for a vote of “no confidence” in Katehi. Fifty signatures are required for such a vote to occur before February (the next regularly scheduled meeting of the faculty Senate). And even if they get the signatures (which they probably will), the vote will not take place until January. I am one of the signatories, not because I am ready to vote for the motion, but because I would like there to be a vote.
Finally, several departments (including mine) have issued statements condemning the use of pepper spray and asking for an investigation, but stopping short of demanding Katehi’s resignation at this time.
UPDATE: A colleague and a student suggested that I clarify my position on the no-confidence resolution because it seems contradictory.
Petition for vote of no-confidence in Chancellor Katehi
The following petition is currently being circulated among the faculty. It needs 50 signatures for the vote to occur prior to the February meeting of the Representative Assembly of the Academic Senate. I have decided to sign the petition. I am not sure how I will vote when the time comes (that will depend on the pending investigations) but I would like the vote to occur.
______________________________
Professor Linda Bisson, Chair
Davis Division of the Academic Senate
Dear Chair Bisson;
The undersigned members of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate hereby call on you to put the following motion of non-confidence in the leadership of the Chancellor to a vote of the entire membership of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate.
Motion: In light of the events on the quadrangle of the UC Davis campus on the afternoon of Friday November 18, 2011, in light of Chancellor Linda’s Katehi’s email to faculty of November 18 in which she admitted that she had ordered the police to take action against the students who were demonstrating on the quadrangle and said that she had had “no option” but to proceed in this way, and in light of the failure of Chancellor Katehi to act effectively to resolve the resulting crisis in the intervening days,
Be it therefore resolved that the Davis Division of the Senate of the University of California lacks confidence in the leadership of Chancellor Katehi, and
Be it also resolved that the result of the vote on this motion be communicated to the Board of Regents and the President of the University of California.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We realize that Senate rules would require delaying the vote on this motion until sometime in the middle of January.
______________________________
Professor Linda Bisson, Chair
Davis Division of the Academic Senate
Dear Chair Bisson;
The undersigned members of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate hereby call on you to put the following motion of non-confidence in the leadership of the Chancellor to a vote of the entire membership of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate.
Motion: In light of the events on the quadrangle of the UC Davis campus on the afternoon of Friday November 18, 2011, in light of Chancellor Linda’s Katehi’s email to faculty of November 18 in which she admitted that she had ordered the police to take action against the students who were demonstrating on the quadrangle and said that she had had “no option” but to proceed in this way, and in light of the failure of Chancellor Katehi to act effectively to resolve the resulting crisis in the intervening days,
Be it therefore resolved that the Davis Division of the Senate of the University of California lacks confidence in the leadership of Chancellor Katehi, and
Be it also resolved that the result of the vote on this motion be communicated to the Board of Regents and the President of the University of California.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We realize that Senate rules would require delaying the vote on this motion until sometime in the middle of January.
Chancellor Birgeneau rebuked by UC Berkeley Academic Senate
The UC Berkeley Academic Senate delivered a stinging rebuke to Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau for ordering police to remove Occupy Cal demonstrators from the front of Sproul Hall on Nov. 9.
A packed gathering of faculty members passed a bloc of four resolutions condemning the administration. The stern language of the resolutions was nothing compared with the harshness of the speeches delivered during the hour-and-45-minute special session Monday afternoon called to discuss the role of protests at UC Berkeley. The attacks on Birgeneau were more personal and more pointed than I've ever heard leveled against a chancellor by his colleagues in my 28 years as a UC professor. Not a single soul spoke to defend him.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/30/EDUS1M6A15.DTL#ixzz1fKrmkvnoTuesday, November 29, 2011
Letter from Chair of Davis Division of the Faculty Senate, Linda F. Bisson
Dear Colleagues:
Many of you have asked me to issue a preliminary assessment of the events occurring on November 18, 2011, and to describe the actions taken to date by me and Executive Council. I know I have asked extraordinary patience of you while I undertake the job that I was appointed to do as your Chair of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate. As a scientist it is not in my nature to get ahead of the data; as a faculty member I put the students first. When I saw the first video of the brutality on the quad I felt as if I had been stabbed in the heart, a feeling I know the majority of you share.
My first communication to the Chancellor on Friday, November 18th was to make sure the charges against the students would be dropped and all medical bills would be covered; she had already made the decision to do so. My second immediate demand was that those directly involved be placed on leave. I learned that although she had requested this be done she has more limited authority than I thought over our police force. Finally, I asked that the police presence on or around the quad be diminished and if necessary I would have faculty patrol the quad to ensure the safety of our students. The members of Executive Council were prepared to be there themselves and to contact their committee members and faculties to back up this position. I had immediate responses from graduate and professional school students to also patrol the quad. The Chancellor assured me that this would not be necessary. Executive Council members periodically went by the encampment once it was reestablished to check on the wellbeing of the students. Executive Council met with the students of the Occupy movement on Wednesday, November 23rd to ask if they felt safe and if there was anything we could do to make them feel safer. They said they felt safe as long as the police were kept away.
Many of you have sent me emails about the man in the grey suit filming the crowd on November 18th with concerns about the intent of that filming. I have asked the Chancellor and she has told me that she does not know who that individual is nor why he was filming the crowd and appeared to be with the police. I will continue to press on this issue.
Second, during the tragedy on the quad we were holding an Executive Council meeting with the Chancellor. I had not been in the loop on decisions that were being made so I had as an agenda item a discussion of her intentions with respect to the Occupy movement and student demonstrations. We learned that she had already called for the tents to be removed and that this was happening as we were being told of her decision. There was no consultation with the Senate regarding this decision. She assured us at that time that although the police had been told to remove the tents as is apparently a UC policy, she had clearly instructed them to do it peacefully and without force unless physically threatened or attacked. Further the reasons for the order to remove the tents were health and safety related, due to poor sanitation practices. As a microbiologist, who teaches sanitation, I know this is indeed a problem. We registered our opposition to the use of excessive force probably just as it was happening. During the meeting, the Chancellor was seated next to me and I know she did not receive any communication from the field. She did get called to the hallway and came back and her report of what had happened was identical to the statement that she subsequently made to the press and that you all have heard and that turned out to be egregiously incorrect as evidenced by the videos released by the press. When I asked the Chancellor about this the next day, she said she had repeated what she had been told by her staff concerning the events of the quad, and it was not until later that she saw the videos released by the press herself. Some Executive Council members thought the clearing of the Occupy movement was timed deliberately during our meeting to prevent any meaningful consultation; others viewed it as simply unfortunate timing. As a consequence, the tenor of my conversations with the Chancellor has been quite different from that of the main campus and I will give a full report at the Representative Assembly meeting.
Third, I started investigating the culture and origin of our repressive policies. I received immediate assistance from the systemwide office of the Academic Senate in sourcing these policies. Bob Anderson called for an emergency teleconference meeting of Academic Council in which I participated. I believe our polices are historic, many a legacy of the incident involving the active shooter at Virginia Tech., and the sharp criticism in the press of campus police being “mall cops” at that time. I know changes were mandated by both state and local governments after that event. I personally do not think one should send inexperienced and untrained individuals against an active shooter. However, I also do not think one should send a SWAT team to issue citations for minor violations.
Executive Council has taken three actions: First, to issue our statement that many have thought was weak but that reflected a commitment to get the facts first. We called for an independent investigation into the events on the quad and I advised the Chancellor to abandon her plans for formation of a taskforce as it would likely not appear credible. Further, if an administrative task force was necessary I believed it should be formed by someone else. We continually emphasized the need for independence of the task force. The result of this request was the decision by the Office of the President to conduct the administrative inquiry. Second, we have formed our own Special Committee to examine the events leading up to the actions taken on the quad and also to review our policies, procedures, culture and climate to make strong recommendations for change. I have read the Brazil report issued by the Police Review Board of UCB in 2010 after an incident in 2009 and agree with most of their recommendations that obviously have not been adopted (http://administration.berkeley.edu/prb/6-14-10_prb-report.pdf). Our Special Committee may have different or additional recommendations of its own. I will do everything that I can to make sure our report is not ignored. Provost/Executive Vice President Pitts has assured me personally that policies will change. Third, I called for a special meeting of the Representative Assembly. I report directly to the Representative Assembly and will have more to say on Friday when we meet. Representative Assembly meetings are public and open to all faculty. The Chancellor will be there. We will hold the meeting in the Mondavi Center to allow for full attendance by the faculty. Executive Council intends to introduce a resolution at that meeting commending our students. I hope to have the text of that resolution finalized and out to all departments and their Representative Assembly members prior to the meeting on Friday.
I am continuing to look into the events of November 18th, and will issue periodic updates to the faculty. I have found many things that I would like to propose that we change, but ask for your continued patience as I am still uncovering new information.
Sincerely,
Linda F. Bisson, Chair
Davis Division of the Academic Senate
Professor: Viticulture and Enology
Many of you have asked me to issue a preliminary assessment of the events occurring on November 18, 2011, and to describe the actions taken to date by me and Executive Council. I know I have asked extraordinary patience of you while I undertake the job that I was appointed to do as your Chair of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate. As a scientist it is not in my nature to get ahead of the data; as a faculty member I put the students first. When I saw the first video of the brutality on the quad I felt as if I had been stabbed in the heart, a feeling I know the majority of you share.
My first communication to the Chancellor on Friday, November 18th was to make sure the charges against the students would be dropped and all medical bills would be covered; she had already made the decision to do so. My second immediate demand was that those directly involved be placed on leave. I learned that although she had requested this be done she has more limited authority than I thought over our police force. Finally, I asked that the police presence on or around the quad be diminished and if necessary I would have faculty patrol the quad to ensure the safety of our students. The members of Executive Council were prepared to be there themselves and to contact their committee members and faculties to back up this position. I had immediate responses from graduate and professional school students to also patrol the quad. The Chancellor assured me that this would not be necessary. Executive Council members periodically went by the encampment once it was reestablished to check on the wellbeing of the students. Executive Council met with the students of the Occupy movement on Wednesday, November 23rd to ask if they felt safe and if there was anything we could do to make them feel safer. They said they felt safe as long as the police were kept away.
Many of you have sent me emails about the man in the grey suit filming the crowd on November 18th with concerns about the intent of that filming. I have asked the Chancellor and she has told me that she does not know who that individual is nor why he was filming the crowd and appeared to be with the police. I will continue to press on this issue.
Second, during the tragedy on the quad we were holding an Executive Council meeting with the Chancellor. I had not been in the loop on decisions that were being made so I had as an agenda item a discussion of her intentions with respect to the Occupy movement and student demonstrations. We learned that she had already called for the tents to be removed and that this was happening as we were being told of her decision. There was no consultation with the Senate regarding this decision. She assured us at that time that although the police had been told to remove the tents as is apparently a UC policy, she had clearly instructed them to do it peacefully and without force unless physically threatened or attacked. Further the reasons for the order to remove the tents were health and safety related, due to poor sanitation practices. As a microbiologist, who teaches sanitation, I know this is indeed a problem. We registered our opposition to the use of excessive force probably just as it was happening. During the meeting, the Chancellor was seated next to me and I know she did not receive any communication from the field. She did get called to the hallway and came back and her report of what had happened was identical to the statement that she subsequently made to the press and that you all have heard and that turned out to be egregiously incorrect as evidenced by the videos released by the press. When I asked the Chancellor about this the next day, she said she had repeated what she had been told by her staff concerning the events of the quad, and it was not until later that she saw the videos released by the press herself. Some Executive Council members thought the clearing of the Occupy movement was timed deliberately during our meeting to prevent any meaningful consultation; others viewed it as simply unfortunate timing. As a consequence, the tenor of my conversations with the Chancellor has been quite different from that of the main campus and I will give a full report at the Representative Assembly meeting.
Third, I started investigating the culture and origin of our repressive policies. I received immediate assistance from the systemwide office of the Academic Senate in sourcing these policies. Bob Anderson called for an emergency teleconference meeting of Academic Council in which I participated. I believe our polices are historic, many a legacy of the incident involving the active shooter at Virginia Tech., and the sharp criticism in the press of campus police being “mall cops” at that time. I know changes were mandated by both state and local governments after that event. I personally do not think one should send inexperienced and untrained individuals against an active shooter. However, I also do not think one should send a SWAT team to issue citations for minor violations.
Executive Council has taken three actions: First, to issue our statement that many have thought was weak but that reflected a commitment to get the facts first. We called for an independent investigation into the events on the quad and I advised the Chancellor to abandon her plans for formation of a taskforce as it would likely not appear credible. Further, if an administrative task force was necessary I believed it should be formed by someone else. We continually emphasized the need for independence of the task force. The result of this request was the decision by the Office of the President to conduct the administrative inquiry. Second, we have formed our own Special Committee to examine the events leading up to the actions taken on the quad and also to review our policies, procedures, culture and climate to make strong recommendations for change. I have read the Brazil report issued by the Police Review Board of UCB in 2010 after an incident in 2009 and agree with most of their recommendations that obviously have not been adopted (http://administration.berkeley.edu/prb/6-14-10_prb-report.pdf). Our Special Committee may have different or additional recommendations of its own. I will do everything that I can to make sure our report is not ignored. Provost/Executive Vice President Pitts has assured me personally that policies will change. Third, I called for a special meeting of the Representative Assembly. I report directly to the Representative Assembly and will have more to say on Friday when we meet. Representative Assembly meetings are public and open to all faculty. The Chancellor will be there. We will hold the meeting in the Mondavi Center to allow for full attendance by the faculty. Executive Council intends to introduce a resolution at that meeting commending our students. I hope to have the text of that resolution finalized and out to all departments and their Representative Assembly members prior to the meeting on Friday.
I am continuing to look into the events of November 18th, and will issue periodic updates to the faculty. I have found many things that I would like to propose that we change, but ask for your continued patience as I am still uncovering new information.
Sincerely,
Linda F. Bisson, Chair
Davis Division of the Academic Senate
Professor: Viticulture and Enology
Letter from Dean of Social Sciences George R. Mangun
Dear students, staff, faculty, alumni and friends of UC Davis,
I join President Yudof and Chancellor Katehi in condemning the use of pepper spray on students who were engaged in non-violent protest on November 18, 2011. This action was deplorable and unacceptable, and is not in line with our university’s Principles of Community or the academic freedoms that our campus holds dear.
For those directly affected, I offer my sympathy. I also wish to acknowledge that many others on campus have been hurt by this affair, even if they were not on the quad that day. It is important that all students, faculty and staff members feel safe and supported at UC Davis. Although this terrible event has shaken the sense of security that many have enjoyed, I want to reassure all that UC Davis is safe, owing to our shared determination that it be so. How can I be so confident? I was on the quad last Monday during the first rally, and I saw the campus stand together, peacefully, with determination. I am incredibly impressed by the courage and dignity shown by our students during and following the incident.
In addition, I am confident that the independent investigations currently under way will result in a better understanding of how we can ensure both campus safety and freedom of expression in the future. I endorse Chancellor Katehi’s request of President Yudof that an independent investigation be conducted from the Office of the President. I further welcome the separate investigations to be conducted by Academic Senate and others.
I am very pleased to witness the leadership shown in the Division of Social Sciences by departments who have expressed their opinions and concerns over the incident. The activities planned by the faculty and students to provide venues for scholarly discussion are laudable.
Severe reductions in state support of higher education and the resultant increases in tuition are some of the major concerns that protestors and non-protesters share. I do not know of anyone on campus, in the administration, the faculty, the staff or the student body, who is not deeply concerned about the future of California public higher education. One of the most passionate voices of concern has been that of our Chancellor herself.
Over the past two years, Chancellor Katehi has repeated in many settings, public and private, that our university must not decline. I have seen for myself the grim determination in her eyes to save public higher education for future generations. Perhaps because she is an alumna of the University of California; perhaps because she does not want to see the greatest university in the world falter; perhaps for other more personal reasons related to her experiences in her country of birth, Greece, and its troubles in higher education; perhaps for all of these reasons and more (I believe) the Chancellor is dedicated to this important effort.
Part of Chancellor Katehi’s plan has been explicit – focus on our students. She has repeatedly stated that the campus must renew its commitment to our students. I have heard her speak on many occasions in support of our students, their opportunities, and their liberties.
While there have been calls from many for the Chancellor to resign, given what I now know, I personally do not believe this is what is best for UC Davis. She has shown strong leadership over the past two years during the worst crisis in California’s higher education history. I believe she is the person we need to bring UC Davis through the ongoing economic crisis. I also believe she will help us all get through the present crisis by working with the campus, not separately from it.
I condemn the appalling actions taken by police against non-violent protestors on the quad. We must take the incident and learn from it. We must take actions that will ensure that such events can never again trouble this campus. We must carefully review administrative and police policies and question how our campus can become a model for safety, security and civil liberty.
I encourage everyone to make their opinions known, regardless of what those opinions may be. We are fortunate to have excellent role models to follow in this regard – the students of UC Davis.
Sincerely,
George R. Mangun, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Neurology
Dean of Social Sciences
College of Letters and Science
I join President Yudof and Chancellor Katehi in condemning the use of pepper spray on students who were engaged in non-violent protest on November 18, 2011. This action was deplorable and unacceptable, and is not in line with our university’s Principles of Community or the academic freedoms that our campus holds dear.
For those directly affected, I offer my sympathy. I also wish to acknowledge that many others on campus have been hurt by this affair, even if they were not on the quad that day. It is important that all students, faculty and staff members feel safe and supported at UC Davis. Although this terrible event has shaken the sense of security that many have enjoyed, I want to reassure all that UC Davis is safe, owing to our shared determination that it be so. How can I be so confident? I was on the quad last Monday during the first rally, and I saw the campus stand together, peacefully, with determination. I am incredibly impressed by the courage and dignity shown by our students during and following the incident.
In addition, I am confident that the independent investigations currently under way will result in a better understanding of how we can ensure both campus safety and freedom of expression in the future. I endorse Chancellor Katehi’s request of President Yudof that an independent investigation be conducted from the Office of the President. I further welcome the separate investigations to be conducted by Academic Senate and others.
I am very pleased to witness the leadership shown in the Division of Social Sciences by departments who have expressed their opinions and concerns over the incident. The activities planned by the faculty and students to provide venues for scholarly discussion are laudable.
Severe reductions in state support of higher education and the resultant increases in tuition are some of the major concerns that protestors and non-protesters share. I do not know of anyone on campus, in the administration, the faculty, the staff or the student body, who is not deeply concerned about the future of California public higher education. One of the most passionate voices of concern has been that of our Chancellor herself.
Over the past two years, Chancellor Katehi has repeated in many settings, public and private, that our university must not decline. I have seen for myself the grim determination in her eyes to save public higher education for future generations. Perhaps because she is an alumna of the University of California; perhaps because she does not want to see the greatest university in the world falter; perhaps for other more personal reasons related to her experiences in her country of birth, Greece, and its troubles in higher education; perhaps for all of these reasons and more (I believe) the Chancellor is dedicated to this important effort.
Part of Chancellor Katehi’s plan has been explicit – focus on our students. She has repeatedly stated that the campus must renew its commitment to our students. I have heard her speak on many occasions in support of our students, their opportunities, and their liberties.
While there have been calls from many for the Chancellor to resign, given what I now know, I personally do not believe this is what is best for UC Davis. She has shown strong leadership over the past two years during the worst crisis in California’s higher education history. I believe she is the person we need to bring UC Davis through the ongoing economic crisis. I also believe she will help us all get through the present crisis by working with the campus, not separately from it.
I condemn the appalling actions taken by police against non-violent protestors on the quad. We must take the incident and learn from it. We must take actions that will ensure that such events can never again trouble this campus. We must carefully review administrative and police policies and question how our campus can become a model for safety, security and civil liberty.
I encourage everyone to make their opinions known, regardless of what those opinions may be. We are fortunate to have excellent role models to follow in this regard – the students of UC Davis.
Sincerely,
George R. Mangun, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Neurology
Dean of Social Sciences
College of Letters and Science
Monday, November 28, 2011
Mike McQuarrie on Police Violence at UC Davis
An excellent essay from Mike McQuarrie:
The Occupy movement at UC Davis was initially about the connections between the privatization of the university and income inequality in society at large. The pepper spraying of students has shifted the discussion to police brutality, the policing of the Occupy movement, and who should take responsibility for the attack. The question that underlies these is: why isn’t the answer simple? Why doesn’t responsibility lie with the administrators who have the authority (and the paychecks) to run the university?
Read More Here
The Occupy movement at UC Davis was initially about the connections between the privatization of the university and income inequality in society at large. The pepper spraying of students has shifted the discussion to police brutality, the policing of the Occupy movement, and who should take responsibility for the attack. The question that underlies these is: why isn’t the answer simple? Why doesn’t responsibility lie with the administrators who have the authority (and the paychecks) to run the university?
Read More Here
Shaun Geer's Letter to Katehi
Dear Chancellor,
Your actions on Friday placed many students in danger. You casually sent in police in Riot gear despite the horrendous example of Berkeley one week ago, while doing nothing to ensure that students would not be harmed. Sadly and predictably, several non-violent student protesters were hurt as a result of your actions. The care and growth of our students is our most sacred trust, and you have violated that trust.
Worse still, your actions afterword suggest no real remorse or efforts to fix the problem, but rather flailing around, trying to find a P.R. spin that will not make you out to be a monster for hurting your students. Your first communique after the incident mentioned that pepper spray was used in the passive voice, as if it just went off by itself and no one was to blame. Now you are trying to blame campus non affiliates, saying that the interaction between students and non-affiliates is dangerous. I wonder if, by your logic, the city of Davis itself should descend into dangerous chaos, what with the members of the city of Davis and students interacting constantly. I am sick of your spin and words. I demand to see decisive, positive leadership. Failing that, I demand your immediate resignation.
I demand to see the following immediately:
1) Police on this campus do not need weapons. Many fine institutions: Princeton, Cornell, Columbia, etc. have amazing police forces that do not carry weapons. They have not descended into anarchy, on the contrary, police and students have better relations on these campuses, as students are less afraid of their police. I demand the removal of weapons from UCDavis police.
2) Protesters need to be supported and listened to by the administration, not met with police with riot gear. Sustained occupation of university property does happen on many campuses, and the university does not collapse. On the contrary, the university is made stronger.
3) The use of pain compliance techniques, like pepper spray on peaceful protesters, should be explicitly forbidden and a statement released condemning it. It absolutely should not be made possible by official UC Davis Police policy, like it is now.
4) Independent, external investigation separate from the University of California into the incident needs to occur.
Failing immediate action on these matters, please add my voice to those calling for your resignation.
Yours,
Shaun Geer
Teach-Ins This Week
Teach-ins on the Quad (Today and all week): http://tinyurl.com/ucdavisteachins (Keep checking the link as new events are still being added)
Teach-in tomorrow
On the Privatization of Our University: It's Bigger Than You Think
Teach-In November 29, 6pm. Haring Hall 2205
Sponsored by Depts. History, Sociology, Economics
Louis Warren (History): "The Board of Regents, the University and the
State Legislature"
Nick Perrone (History): "The Role of Unions"
Eric Rauchway (History): "Protests and Politics"
Clarence Walker (History): no topic yet
Tori Langland (History): No topic yet
Lorena Oropeza (History): Whose Diversity? Our Diversity!: Latinos and
the University of California
Sarah Agusto (Sociology): "the UC student movement meets the OWS movement"
John Hall (Sociology): "Unmaking the Public University"
Ann Stevens (Economics): "Rising Inequality in the US: The Story of Your Lives"
Rob Feenstra (Economics): "Financing the University: Where Has Tuition Gone?"
Teach-In November 29, 6pm. Haring Hall 2205
Sponsored by Depts. History, Sociology, Economics
Louis Warren (History): "The Board of Regents, the University and the
State Legislature"
Nick Perrone (History): "The Role of Unions"
Eric Rauchway (History): "Protests and Politics"
Clarence Walker (History): no topic yet
Tori Langland (History): No topic yet
Lorena Oropeza (History): Whose Diversity? Our Diversity!: Latinos and
the University of California
Sarah Agusto (Sociology): "the UC student movement meets the OWS movement"
John Hall (Sociology): "Unmaking the Public University"
Ann Stevens (Economics): "Rising Inequality in the US: The Story of Your Lives"
Rob Feenstra (Economics): "Financing the University: Where Has Tuition Gone?"
CUCFA Letter to President Yudof on Bratton
Dear President Yudof,
The Council of University of California Faculty Associations (CUCFA) protests your decision to hire the Kroll Security Group, and its Chairman William Bratton, to conduct what you call an independent investigation of police violence at UC Davis. We take no position here on Mr. Bratton's personal qualifications; our objection is to the conflicts of interest of Kroll Security itself, which is already a major contractor with UC on security matters. According to its website, Kroll's services are not confined to securing databases and facilities from attacks by criminals and terrorists. It also protects many global financial institutions and other multinationals against threats to "operations" that may come from public criticism and direct political action.
By deepening UC's links to Kroll, you would be illustrating the kinds of connection between public higher education and Wall Street that the Occupy UC movement is protesting. Kroll's parent company, Altegrity, provides data-mining, intelligence and on-the-ground security to financial institutions and governments seeking to head off and defeat both private sabotage and public protest. In addition, Altegrity's parent company, Providence Private Equity, is a major global investor in for-profit higher education companies that benefit from the decline of publicly funded higher education.
We already know that Kroll has provided security services to at least three UC campuses for the past several years. This in itself would disqualify Mr. Bratton from participating in the investigation you propose, even if the role of Kroll and its affiliated companies in defending the financial sector against OWS did not raise further questions about its pro-Wall Street and pro-privatization bias.
A truly independent investigation that would allow UC to provide a credible response to the events at Davis (and the other campuses) needs to address several questions that would not be seriously considered if you hire Kroll.
* What was your role and that of UC General Counsel in the events at Davis? Did you, as a distinguished first amendment scholar, tell chancellors and campus police chiefs that protests (especially protests against UC's own policies) are "part of the DNA of this University" that should not be addressed using the same techniques that UC has developed (likely with the help of Kroll) to deal with terrorists, shooters, and cyber-saboteurs? (Even if you have been a zealous defender of the rising student movement to restore public higher education, such a conclusion would not be credible coming from an investigation tainted by Kroll's conflicts of interest outlined above.)
* What was and is the role of Kroll in helping banks and public institutions (including UC) investigate and defeat movements such as OWS and their campus counterparts? Is Kroll now acting as a liaison between universities, city governments and the Department of Homeland Security in defending the financial sector against protests occurring on what used to be considered public spaces? Are protests against Wall Street in such spaces now considered a threat to the security of the nation, the city and the public university? (The growing securitization of public space has been a major obstacle to first amendment activity since 9-11.)
* How much money has UC and its individual campuses paid to Kroll for security services? Were these contracts issued as sole source contracts or was there open bidding? Were Kroll's services confined to protecting, for example, the privacy and integrity of data systems and faculty and staff conducting animal research or did they extended to what Kroll's website calls "organizational threats" arising from "the dynamic and sometimes conflicting needs of the entire campus population"? (This could be a description of the student protests that you rightly regard as "central to our history" as a university.)
* What led to the issuance of false and misleading statements by University of California officials (Chancellors and their assistants, spokespeople, and police chiefs) in the aftermath of police violence at Berkeley and Davis? Did you encourage these efforts at spin control? (Dishonest statements seriously damage the university as an institution devoted to truth and protect only the individuals whose decisions are in question.)
The broader issue is how protest can be part of what you characterized as "our university's DNA" when the right to protest is not formally recognized within the university's own codes of student and faculty conduct. It could be and should be. The CSU student code states explicitly that "[n]othing in this Code may conflict with Education Code Section 66301 that prohibits disciplinary action against students based on behavior protected by the first amendment." If such language were included in the UC code of conduct, students would have a clear first amendment defense against disciplinary action arising from peaceful political protest-and there would be strong grounds for questioning the legality of a police order to disperse a peaceful protest from a public site on a public university campus. The explicit incorporation of constitutional limits on UC's power to break up
demonstrations that threaten its march toward privatization would go a long way toward recovering UC as a public, rather than a private, space. We urge you to see that the UC codes of conduct are amended to parallel those in place at CSU.
Events at Davis and the other campuses have shown the University of California in a negative light, and we agree strongly with the need for an independent investigation. We believe, however, that your appointment of Kroll to investigate the university's response to last week's protest could itself become a basis for new protests, and that you should ask Speaker Pérez (or someone unaffiliated with the University) to appoint a genuinely independent committee with representatives from student, faculty, staff and civil liberties groups. Such a committee should be given a specific charge to investigate and report on all of the questions set forth above.
Robert Meister,
President, Council of UC Faculty Associations
Professor History of Consciousness and Political and Social Thought, UC Santa Cruz
Thursday, November 24, 2011
John Hall on Occupy Davis
To say that a social movement grew “spontaneously” would beg the question: how does spontaneity happen? Occupy Wall Street (OWS) quickly captured the imagination of people across the United States and the world. What happened in Davis, California is a telling story, partly for how events built on events, and partly because of how the town’s Occupy Davis (OD) movement became aligned with a UC Davis Strike that morphed into Occupy UCD.
Read More
Read More
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Faculty and Staff Town Hall Meeting with Katehi
Faculty and staff are invited to a town hall meeting on Tuesday, November 29, in Freeborn Hall from 4:00-5:30 p.m. The meeting will be an open discussion with Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter, and Matt Carmichael, Acting Chief of the UC Davis Police Department.
Women and Gender Studies on Katehi
Dear Chancellor Katehi,
The faculty of the Women and Gender Studies program are writing to express our deep concern regarding the unjustifiable use of gratuitous force against UC Davis students on November 18, 2011. The administration has attempted to defend its actions by characterizing them as measures taken to protect the health and safety of Davis students. We do not see how pepper spraying students demonstrates concern for their well-being.
The campus community has been asked to accept disproportionate police action in the name of safety. To encourage the acceptance of that logic, the administration raises the specter of criminalized outsiders and mentions the risk of university “liability.” We do not accept the logic that outsiders, sitting on the ground, with their arms linked to our students, are more dangerous than the persons pointing weapons at them. In fact, sitting with linked arms has a long tradition in the Black Civil Rights and pacifist movements in this country and is understood as a non-violent means of exercising free speech rights. Furthermore we reject the implicit gendered logic of vulnerability that suggests that in order to protect vulnerable women from outsiders we must stifle protest.
Witnesses present on Friday afternoon report that most if not all of the tents were removed before the police closed in upon the students. Regardless, the issue of the presence of tents is a specious one. Despite the administration’s calls for tolerance and dialogue, it has shown that it will not tolerate peaceful protest. At UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau described arm-linking as "not nonviolent." Such a claim is preposterous and merely represents an attempt to find provocation where none is present. The students who were pepper-sprayed were linking arms and sitting on the ground. As the video of Friday’s events spreads across the Internet, it is clear to all who view it that it was not the students, but rather the police who were violent. We are deeply concerned by the militarized police violence that academic administration used to exercise its control and discipline over Davis students expressing concerns over rising debts and UC tuition, the stress on their families, and the privatization of a public land grant institution. Moreover, the video clearly discredits the police chief’s account of what transpired.
For those of us old enough to remember, Friday’s events brought back images of Kent State. We reject arguments that justify violence in the name of security. We oppose the stifling of free speech done in the name of maintaining community. We reaffirm the right of students to assemble, to link arms, and to fight for public education. The video of an officer, systematically pepper-spraying passive students, has circulated nationally and discredits our university. We can be very proud, however, of the students who bravely and peacefully held their ground. We are writing to show our support of those students. We share their love of this university and their belief that public education and social-economic justice are worth fighting for.
In times of conflict, the administration often invokes the Principles of Community but does not appear to be able to translate these principles into actions that bring a diverse community together. Those Principles were fundamentally violated on Friday. We ask for clear accountability. We want to know how and why the decision was made to call in police from other jurisdictions. We want to know whose decision it was to have the police appear in riot gear. We want to know who sanctioned the use of pepper spray. Finally, we want to know what specific measures will be put into place to ensure that such violence never again occurs on our campus.
We call for an immediate and thorough investigation by an Academic Senate-appointed committee, to be completed by the end of fall quarter, of the events leading to the use of force on Friday and request that those found culpable be disciplined. We call upon the Chancellor to drop any pending charges against the students who were taken into custody, and to take immediate actions to foster a meaningful dialogue regarding next steps. We do not believe that the campus can wait 90 days for a task force report.
The faculty of the Women and Gender Studies program are writing to express our deep concern regarding the unjustifiable use of gratuitous force against UC Davis students on November 18, 2011. The administration has attempted to defend its actions by characterizing them as measures taken to protect the health and safety of Davis students. We do not see how pepper spraying students demonstrates concern for their well-being.
The campus community has been asked to accept disproportionate police action in the name of safety. To encourage the acceptance of that logic, the administration raises the specter of criminalized outsiders and mentions the risk of university “liability.” We do not accept the logic that outsiders, sitting on the ground, with their arms linked to our students, are more dangerous than the persons pointing weapons at them. In fact, sitting with linked arms has a long tradition in the Black Civil Rights and pacifist movements in this country and is understood as a non-violent means of exercising free speech rights. Furthermore we reject the implicit gendered logic of vulnerability that suggests that in order to protect vulnerable women from outsiders we must stifle protest.
Witnesses present on Friday afternoon report that most if not all of the tents were removed before the police closed in upon the students. Regardless, the issue of the presence of tents is a specious one. Despite the administration’s calls for tolerance and dialogue, it has shown that it will not tolerate peaceful protest. At UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau described arm-linking as "not nonviolent." Such a claim is preposterous and merely represents an attempt to find provocation where none is present. The students who were pepper-sprayed were linking arms and sitting on the ground. As the video of Friday’s events spreads across the Internet, it is clear to all who view it that it was not the students, but rather the police who were violent. We are deeply concerned by the militarized police violence that academic administration used to exercise its control and discipline over Davis students expressing concerns over rising debts and UC tuition, the stress on their families, and the privatization of a public land grant institution. Moreover, the video clearly discredits the police chief’s account of what transpired.
For those of us old enough to remember, Friday’s events brought back images of Kent State. We reject arguments that justify violence in the name of security. We oppose the stifling of free speech done in the name of maintaining community. We reaffirm the right of students to assemble, to link arms, and to fight for public education. The video of an officer, systematically pepper-spraying passive students, has circulated nationally and discredits our university. We can be very proud, however, of the students who bravely and peacefully held their ground. We are writing to show our support of those students. We share their love of this university and their belief that public education and social-economic justice are worth fighting for.
In times of conflict, the administration often invokes the Principles of Community but does not appear to be able to translate these principles into actions that bring a diverse community together. Those Principles were fundamentally violated on Friday. We ask for clear accountability. We want to know how and why the decision was made to call in police from other jurisdictions. We want to know whose decision it was to have the police appear in riot gear. We want to know who sanctioned the use of pepper spray. Finally, we want to know what specific measures will be put into place to ensure that such violence never again occurs on our campus.
We call for an immediate and thorough investigation by an Academic Senate-appointed committee, to be completed by the end of fall quarter, of the events leading to the use of force on Friday and request that those found culpable be disciplined. We call upon the Chancellor to drop any pending charges against the students who were taken into custody, and to take immediate actions to foster a meaningful dialogue regarding next steps. We do not believe that the campus can wait 90 days for a task force report.
English on Katehi
The faculty of the UC Davis English Department supports the Board of the Davis Faculty Association in calling for Chancellor Katehi’s immediate resignation and for “a policy that will end the practice of forcibly removing non-violent student, faculty, staff, and community protesters by police on the UC Davis campus.” Further, given the demonstrable threat posed by the University of California Police Department and other law enforcement agencies to the safety of students, faculty, staff, and community members on our campus and others in the UC system, we propose that such a policy include the disbanding of the UCPD and the institution of an ordinance against the presence of police forces on the UC Davis campus, unless their presence is specifically requested by a member of the campus community. This will initiate a genuinely collective effort to determine how best to ensure the health and safety of the campus community at UC Davis.
Dean Dad of Inside Higher Ed on Katehi
Inside Higher Ed
Dear Chancellor Katehi,
I imagine you’re feeling burned right now. You trusted the wrong people, and find yourself in a completely untenable position.
You know perfectly well that what the police did to peaceful protesters was beyond reason. There’s really no disputing that. The right to peaceable assembly is well-enshrined in American law, and for good reason. The videos speak for themselves.
Your people overshot. But you know that.
I’m not writing you to educate you about free speech or police brutality. I assume you’re smart enough to understand both, and to see clearly that the University was badly on the wrong side here.
I’m writing as a fellow higher ed administrator. Like you, I’ve been on the receiving end of smug tirades by people who don’t have to balance competing goods. It’s frustrating. And I’ve also had to deal with the fallout when people who report to me make decisions I wish they hadn’t. It happens.
Now you’re in that awful position where the protesters are right. It’s hard to swallow, but it’s true.
At this point, as I see it, you have exactly two ways to play this. You can resign, or you can jump out in front of the issue. The one thing you absolutely cannot do is be careful.
Resignation is obvious, and your hand may be forced, so I’ll leave it at that. The second option is admittedly risky, but with the egregiousness of the police conduct and the international attention being paid, the usual “let’s appoint a committee to look into it” won’t work.
The ground has shifted from under you. You cannot defend the police. You just can’t.
If you’re up to it, though, you can try to defend the purpose of the university. You can’t dodge this, but you may be able to lead your way out.
The way to do that would involve, first of all, admitting fault. You’ll have to eat a fair bit of crow, both privately and publicly. Then you have to admit that this has been a wake-up call.
The point of the university is the pursuit of truth through the open exchange of ideas. You need to admit -- even better, assert -- that the conduct of the police was directly antithetical to the purpose of the university. You need to prosecute the police involved, and replace the chief. You need to establish some sort of community board to monitor the police. The campus police will hate you for that, but it has to be done.
Then you need to take active steps to make UC-Davis a civil community in the fullest sense of ‘civil.’ That doesn’t mean ‘polite’ or ‘quiescent.’ It means a setting in which vigorous debate is actually possible -- and sometimes even encouraged -- with the shared understanding that we separate the speaker from the speech. I’d start by personally engaging the Occupy protesters on campus, and then by inviting speakers from all over to debate each other in public, both formally and informally. You need to attend those debates personally.
This can’t be delegated. You can’t ask your associate dean of whatever to handle it. As the chancellor, you have to get out there yourself. And you have to steel yourself emotionally for the vituperation that will come your way. You can’t take the bait.
Like it or not, the only way around this is through it. You have to own this, personally and publicly. You have to get out there yourself, take the risk of public humiliation, and change the way the university treats the people who get on its nerves.
If that’s too tall an order, just resign. But make up your mind quickly. Twisting in the wind will do untold damage to everything the university stands for.
Good luck. I’m glad I’m not you right now.
Sincerely,
Dean Dad
Dear Chancellor Katehi,
I imagine you’re feeling burned right now. You trusted the wrong people, and find yourself in a completely untenable position.
You know perfectly well that what the police did to peaceful protesters was beyond reason. There’s really no disputing that. The right to peaceable assembly is well-enshrined in American law, and for good reason. The videos speak for themselves.
Your people overshot. But you know that.
I’m not writing you to educate you about free speech or police brutality. I assume you’re smart enough to understand both, and to see clearly that the University was badly on the wrong side here.
I’m writing as a fellow higher ed administrator. Like you, I’ve been on the receiving end of smug tirades by people who don’t have to balance competing goods. It’s frustrating. And I’ve also had to deal with the fallout when people who report to me make decisions I wish they hadn’t. It happens.
Now you’re in that awful position where the protesters are right. It’s hard to swallow, but it’s true.
At this point, as I see it, you have exactly two ways to play this. You can resign, or you can jump out in front of the issue. The one thing you absolutely cannot do is be careful.
Resignation is obvious, and your hand may be forced, so I’ll leave it at that. The second option is admittedly risky, but with the egregiousness of the police conduct and the international attention being paid, the usual “let’s appoint a committee to look into it” won’t work.
The ground has shifted from under you. You cannot defend the police. You just can’t.
If you’re up to it, though, you can try to defend the purpose of the university. You can’t dodge this, but you may be able to lead your way out.
The way to do that would involve, first of all, admitting fault. You’ll have to eat a fair bit of crow, both privately and publicly. Then you have to admit that this has been a wake-up call.
The point of the university is the pursuit of truth through the open exchange of ideas. You need to admit -- even better, assert -- that the conduct of the police was directly antithetical to the purpose of the university. You need to prosecute the police involved, and replace the chief. You need to establish some sort of community board to monitor the police. The campus police will hate you for that, but it has to be done.
Then you need to take active steps to make UC-Davis a civil community in the fullest sense of ‘civil.’ That doesn’t mean ‘polite’ or ‘quiescent.’ It means a setting in which vigorous debate is actually possible -- and sometimes even encouraged -- with the shared understanding that we separate the speaker from the speech. I’d start by personally engaging the Occupy protesters on campus, and then by inviting speakers from all over to debate each other in public, both formally and informally. You need to attend those debates personally.
This can’t be delegated. You can’t ask your associate dean of whatever to handle it. As the chancellor, you have to get out there yourself. And you have to steel yourself emotionally for the vituperation that will come your way. You can’t take the bait.
Like it or not, the only way around this is through it. You have to own this, personally and publicly. You have to get out there yourself, take the risk of public humiliation, and change the way the university treats the people who get on its nerves.
If that’s too tall an order, just resign. But make up your mind quickly. Twisting in the wind will do untold damage to everything the university stands for.
Good luck. I’m glad I’m not you right now.
Sincerely,
Dean Dad
Sociology on Katehi
Chancellor Katehi:
We write in response to your email message of Friday November 18th 2011. We appreciate yourresponsibility to ensure a safe environment for all members of our campus community. However, in our view, non-violent student action is not a threat to campus safety, whereas police brutality is.
We strongly condemn the use of pepper spray and batons against peaceful protest. Taxpayers, whether they are students, staff, faculty or members of other communities have the right to assemble and protest peacefully without being subjected to the use of pre-emptive violence. Police must not use violence when they are ordered to arrest peaceful protesters who break the law for refusing to leave segregated lunch counters, change seats on buses, or leave public spaces when ordered to do so.
The economic, social, and psychological costs of police aggression and the damage to our reputation as an institution of higher learning far outweigh the costs the protest itself incurred. Following the Principles of Community that you have espoused, we ask that anyone who ordered or approved the use of force against peaceful protesters take responsibility and be held accountable. We also ask that you apologize to the students and the university community and express profound regret for the decisions you made in responding to the protest. This would bethe most productive way to begin healing our campus.
We write in response to your email message of Friday November 18th 2011. We appreciate yourresponsibility to ensure a safe environment for all members of our campus community. However, in our view, non-violent student action is not a threat to campus safety, whereas police brutality is.
We strongly condemn the use of pepper spray and batons against peaceful protest. Taxpayers, whether they are students, staff, faculty or members of other communities have the right to assemble and protest peacefully without being subjected to the use of pre-emptive violence. Police must not use violence when they are ordered to arrest peaceful protesters who break the law for refusing to leave segregated lunch counters, change seats on buses, or leave public spaces when ordered to do so.
The economic, social, and psychological costs of police aggression and the damage to our reputation as an institution of higher learning far outweigh the costs the protest itself incurred. Following the Principles of Community that you have espoused, we ask that anyone who ordered or approved the use of force against peaceful protesters take responsibility and be held accountable. We also ask that you apologize to the students and the university community and express profound regret for the decisions you made in responding to the protest. This would bethe most productive way to begin healing our campus.
Physics on Katehi
Dear Chancellor Katehi:
With a heavy heart and substantial deliberation, we the undersigned faculty ofthe UC Davis physics department send you this letter expressing our lack ofconfidence in your leadership and calling for your prompt resignation in the wake of the outrageous, unnecessary, and brutal pepper spraying episode on campus Friday, Nov. 18.
The reasons for this are as follows.
• The demonstrations were nonviolent, and the student encampments posed no threat to the university community. The outcomes of sending in police in Oakland, Berkeley, New York City, Portland, and Seattle should have led you to exhaust all other options before resorting to police action.
• Authorizing force after a single day of encampments constitutes a gross violation of the UC Davis principles of community, especially the commitment to civility: “We affirm the right of freedom of expression withinour community and affirm our commitment to the highest standards ofcivility and decency towards all.”
• Your response in the aftermath of these incidents has failed to restore trust in your leadership in the university community.
We have appreciated your leadership during these difficult times on working to maintain and enhance excellence at UC Davis. UC Davis and caused the faculty, students, parents, and alumni of UC Davis to lose confidence in your leadership. At this point we feel that the best thing that you can do for this university is to take full responsibility and resign immediately. Our campus community deserves a fresh start.
With a heavy heart and substantial deliberation, we the undersigned faculty ofthe UC Davis physics department send you this letter expressing our lack ofconfidence in your leadership and calling for your prompt resignation in the wake of the outrageous, unnecessary, and brutal pepper spraying episode on campus Friday, Nov. 18.
The reasons for this are as follows.
• The demonstrations were nonviolent, and the student encampments posed no threat to the university community. The outcomes of sending in police in Oakland, Berkeley, New York City, Portland, and Seattle should have led you to exhaust all other options before resorting to police action.
• Authorizing force after a single day of encampments constitutes a gross violation of the UC Davis principles of community, especially the commitment to civility: “We affirm the right of freedom of expression withinour community and affirm our commitment to the highest standards ofcivility and decency towards all.”
• Your response in the aftermath of these incidents has failed to restore trust in your leadership in the university community.
We have appreciated your leadership during these difficult times on working to maintain and enhance excellence at UC Davis. UC Davis and caused the faculty, students, parents, and alumni of UC Davis to lose confidence in your leadership. At this point we feel that the best thing that you can do for this university is to take full responsibility and resign immediately. Our campus community deserves a fresh start.
Geology on Katehi
An open letter to the UC Davis community:
We are members of the UCD Geology Department. We speak only for ourselves and no one else on campus. And to be certain, no one, neither the Davis Faculty Association, the English Department or the Physics Department, speaks for us.
We are saddened by the events of November 18th, where our University failed in its mandate to support free speech and peaceful protest. The actions of the University on that day were wrong and do not reflect our values or our principles. This University has and should always be a place that welcomes diverse views and respects the right to protest. The pepper spraying of students exercising their fundamental rights should never have happened.
The media have portrayed the voices of a minority among us as the voice of us all. And this minority voice has called for the resignation of Linda Katehi, our Chancellor. We disagree.
Logic, reason and critical thinking—the very traits we try to instill in our students—are missing from this debate. There is no indication that Chancellor Katehi ordered the use of force exhibited by the campus police. If this simple fact holds following investigation, then there is no reason to call for the Chancellor’s resignation. Rather, there is every reason to call for this Chancellor to take every measure to make certain that this never happens at our university again.
We support Linda Katehi as Chancellor and reject calls for her resignation. The Academic Senate should do the same.
Boring Hard Boards
“Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective. Certainly all historical experience confirms the truth - that man would not have attained the possible unless time and again he had reached out for the impossible. But to do that a man must be a leader, and not only a leader but a hero as well, in a very sober sense of the word. And even those who are neither leaders nor heroes must arm themselves with that steadfastness of heart which can brave even the crumbling of all hopes. This is necessary right now, or else men will not be able to attain even that which is possible today.” ― Max Weber
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)