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, 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.

2 comments:

  1. It seems very much worth reflecting on the narrative of the Brown/Butler/Thorne resolution and its "toning down."

    As was widely discussed, that resolution was toned down not for the purpose of changing what was being resolved, but out of a tactical calculation that the original, with its force of general "no confidence," stood no chance of passing. Retrospectively, the landslide nature of the vote suggested clearly that this had been a miscalculation, and that a "no confidence" resolution would have passed decisively.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Joshua,

    You're right that I should have made more of the strategic element of the toning down. I'm not convinced though that size of the vote for the modified resolution and the others indicates that this was a miscalculation.

    Best,

    Drew

    ReplyDelete