Sunday Commentary: Fundamental Distrust Between Youth and Police Underlies Current Issues on Campus and in the City
Written by David Greenwald Sunday, 04 March 2012 07:28
On Tuesday we will find out the long-awaited results of the pepper-spray report. Many are bracing themselves for a whitewashing, but I don't think that is going to happen. The reason that is not going to happen is that Cruz Reynoso is not going to allow it to happen.
I know that he would have preferred to have been able to speak with, or at least have the Kroll investigators speak with, Lt. John Pike and the police chief, but apparently they have enough to know who did what and who ordered whom to do what.
Interestingly enough is the city council's curious decision to put the Minor Alcohol Preclusion Ordinance on the agenda that evening. It is difficult to know whether it will simply lose its force and get overshadowed by the pepper-spray report, or if anger fueled by one will spill over into the other.
There is an irony in that both matters may be determined the same day, because I think, in a very real way, just as this issue really is about Picnic Day and alcohol for the public, this issue is also about the police for college students.
In many ways, the opposition to the Alcohol Minor Preclusion Ordinance has to do with distrust for the police embodied by the pepper-spraying incident. If you listen to student complaints, it is really about giving the police another tool that they can, in their minds, use to harass the young - not just those under 21, but those who appear they could be under 21. As someone nearly 40, that's pretty much anyone under 30.
In many ways, the pepper spraying is a culmination of poor police tactics at handling protest situations on the UC Davis campus since 2007. In 2007, the police made the fateful decision to arrest nearly a dozen protesters who were "occupying" Mrak Hall - in the former usage of the word. The problem was that you cannot trespass in a public building during normal business hours, and so the arrests were actually illegal.
In 2009, it was the occupation of Mrak Hall that led to the arrest and acquittal of Brienna Holmes. Ms. Holmes has since filed a lawsuit against UC Davis, alleging that Captain Joyce Souza had singled her out and used excessive force as she waited outside of the building where a protest was being held.
She told the Vanguard, "On the night I was arrested in front of Mrak, I went to my evening class and returned back to Mrak to find a friend of my mine. I was standing alone towards the parking lot and news vans, when Officer Souza approached me."
"Still to this day, I don't understand why I was singled out and pushed by Officer Souza. I was not trespassing or aggravating the situation in any way. I was simply an innocent bystander eventually tangled in the police chaos," she continued.
In 2010, a student was Tasered during a protest where protesters threatened to perhaps attempt to block I-80. Initially, the police denied the reports, but when video surfaced they were forced to acknowledge that it had occurred.
Last year, the students' distrust increased when it became apparent that university organizations were tracking student activism.
According to a release from a student group, "The information has shocked students, staff and faculty at UC Davis as they begin to examine it. The documents reveal that high-ranking administrators, staff members who work closely with students and leaders of the campus police department formed a network called the 'Activism Response Team' to keep close tabs on student activists and their plans."
While the "Activism Response Team" was far more innocuous than it first seemed, the revelations corresponded with revelations that a UC Davis Police Officer, Johanna Zaconi, had allegedly disguised herself as a "'protester" when she introduced herself as part of the UC Davis Biological Department in March. And then she denied being a police officer when confronted by student protesters.
University Spokesperson Claudia Morain denied that there was an undercover officer and that this was an infiltration. She told the Vanguard, "The officer was in plain clothes and part of the police presence to ensure public safety."
However, she did acknowledge that this was not handled as well as it should have been.
"This clearly has caused concern among some students and members of the community, and we can do better in the future," Ms. Morain told the Vanguard last year. "Officers are going to identify themselves from now on, and they'll either be in uniform or have a badge on their belts."
All of the past incidents have led to a pattern of distrust of the police and the university, for their handling of such matters.
When we wonder why the students might not trust the university, perhaps we ought to understand that anxiety within the six-year context of events.
One of the students who was pepper sprayed, David Buscho. is not hopeful that the investigation will yield the kinds of findings he sees as needed, but he said, "I think now that a reputable organization like the ACLU is here [and] is involved in representing the interests of the students, I think that now we can actually say that [the university will move in the right direction to rectify the situation]."
"To date all [the university] has done is put two officers on paid administrative leave," he noted.
Mr. Buscho questions the independence of those investigations and believes they are simply there to build a defense case for the university.
ACLU attorney Michael Risher is a bit more diplomatic.
"We will certainly be interested to see what the investigation comes up with. We will read their reports very carefully," he told the Vanguard. "Our goals are to make sure nothing like this ever happens again, to get to the bottom of what did happen and we see them as complementary."
"There have already been two extensions of the report that is coming out," he added. "We are not going to prejudge those. We'll be very interested to see what they say. We feel there is also a need for an independent look into this and that's part of the reason we filed this."
At the same time, there has been a lengthy history of distrust between students and City of Davis police, that is also reflective in the stance against the Minor Alcohol Preclusion act. The biggest concerns for students have been about what constitutes probable cause and reasonable suspicion.
Within that context, one must understand the longstanding distrust of police by members of the minority community.
During our MLK Event, Osahon Ekhator said that as soon as he got a new car from his parents, he was pulled over seven times by the police.
Professor Desmond Jolly said, "For young black men, unfortunately, I think it's still a problem," and related that his son was stopped frequently by police in Davis, "almost every Friday and Saturday night."
"Davis has become much more open and tolerant about diversity," he said, "But there are still pockets of resistance. I think the locus of that might be the police department and perhaps, in some degree, in the schools."
One reason that students are opposing this has very little to do with alcohol and a lot to do with the belief that this will give police another tool to see a group of young people and single them out with very little rationale needed.
Moreover, distrust was also fueled by the lack of notice and prior discussion they had before proceeding with the proposed ordinance.
At their January meeting, the council expressed concern that this matter had not been vetted through the Student Liaison Commission, a body that is not only representative of students, but also law enforcement and business interests.
They passed the ordinance on first reading, in order to send it to the Student Liaison Commission, who would hear the matter in late January.
The discussion that followed should have been telling about the gulf between the police and students - and the manner in which this came forward makes it far worse.
Rebecca Sterling was recently elected student body president. Speaking at the meeting, she said that this ordinance came as a shock and she believes that students should have been involved in the conversation from the start.
Yara, a current ASUCD Senator, had issues with the term "reasonable cause," arguing she would feel more comfortable with something like "objective symptoms." She stated flatly, "Our biggest issue is there is distrust between students and police. This really did not help at all."
She cited a good relationship last year between the police and Greek Life as the result of pre-Picnic Day conversations. The result was that no one from Greek Life was arrested at all. She said that they had built a good relationship but "I think this completely destroys that. It's going to cause more issues because I wouldn't call the police on my party if all my friends are going to get breathalyzed on their way out. I would probably stay at a party that was getting out of hand, too."
Carly Sandstrom, the ACUCD External Affairs Chair said, "Having this act increases the gap between the student and the police population. It doesn't help with wanting to communicate with their neighbors - if you're going to have a party - because, regardless, you can get fined."
The city council wanted to hear what the students had to say - but oddly enough, except for Councilmember Greenwald, they did not attend this meeting.
The message should have been loud and clear. And yet here we are, a month later, and the council is bringing back the item with a staff recommendation for approval.
We wonder why the students distrust the process - I think most probably believe that they have not had their concerns heard and will not get them heard.
Unfortunately, community members seem to not really understand what this issue is about. Elaine Roberts Musser spoke in favor of the ordinance at the January city council meeting, and posted yesterday: "The police attempted to engage the students, they essentially refused by voting 'no' on the ordinance and then not showing up in any significant numbers to discuss it, which is no surprise."
She added, "Students seem to want unfettered rights to consume alcohol, no matter their age."
The problem is that the way in which this item was presented directly to council without having a discussion by the commission, or discussions with student groups, poisoned whatever possibility there was for collaboration or buy-in.
More importantly, I have yet to see an honest give and take. I have yet to see a dialogue, rather than directives from police that this is how it is going to be.
Moreover, I think alcohol is only a small part of this issue. The bigger issue that came out, both at the council meeting and in the student meeting, was not alcohol but police-student interactions. The students said it - there is distrust between students and police and everything that has happened since November has been about that distrust.
That is the real problem, and it is what is fueling the lawsuit against the university, and it is what is fueling the opposition to this Minor Alcohol Preclusion Ordinance.
Six years ago, African-Americans in large numbers came before the city council to express their concerns with treatment by the police. Most were students. Hundreds in May of that same year marched from the Memorial Union to the police station.
The response from the broader community was indifference, and worse. Those problems, while not nearly as public, have not gone away and they are the underlying current that fuels this opposition.
No one wants to hear that today, let alone acknowledge it. But that's where we stand.
---David M. Greenwald reporting
David Greenwald said . . .
"Moreover, I think alcohol is only a small part of this issue. The bigger that came out both at the council meeting and in the student meeting was not alcohol but police-student interactions. The students said it - there is distrust between students and police and everything that has happened in the since November has been about that distrust."
Setting aside the African American community's concerns for a moment, is there any surprise that there is distrust between the student community and the police? The students want to bend or break (in the case of alchohol) the rules, and when they are doing that they don't want to get caught. Who do they fear is going to catch them? The police. It's a simple dynamic. It was that way when I was at Cornell in the '60s and '70's. It was that way when I was at Woodstock. It was that way for every poster here whenever they were college age. It will be that way in perpetuity.
The concerns of the African-American community are nowhere near as simple, and deserve a full and focused airing. That airing should not be merged with the race-independent student issues.
David, look at the lesson illuminated by the radio tower process. Lots went on before Anon paid attention, and then the wailing and gnashing of teeth poured out. Drinking has been discussed and discussed and discussed over multiple years. We've had to have discussion about deaths in which drinking at student activities was a significant contributing factor. No one should have been the least bit surprised that Chief Black decifed that stronger measures were needed.
If the students feel they were blindsided then they probably should look in the mirror.
Unfortunately, community members seem to not really understand what this issue is about. Elaine Roberts Musser spoke in favor of the ordinance at the January city council meeting, and posted yesterday: "The police attempted to engage the students, they essentially refused by voting 'no' on the ordinance and then not showing up in any significant numbers to discuss it, which is no surprise."
She added, "Students seem to want unfettered rights to consume alcohol, no matter their age."
The problem is that the way in which this item was presented directly to council without having a discussion at the commission, or discussions with student groups poisoned whatever possibility there was for collaboration or buy-in.
More importantly, I have yet to see an honest give and take. I have yet to see a dialogue, rather than directives from police that this is how it is going to be.
First of all, the students had an opportunity to discuss the issue, and did not bother to show up. What that tells me is students are not interested in dialogue, they are only interested in getting their way. Matt Williams' assessments is right on the money:
Setting aside the African American community's concerns for a moment, is there any surprise that there is distrust between the student community and the police? The students want to bend or break (in the case of alchohol) the rules, and when they are doing that they don't want to get caught. Who do they fear is going to catch them? The police. It's a simple dynamic. It was that way when I was at Cornell in the '60s and '70's. It was that way when I was at Woodstock. It was that way for every poster here whenever they were college age. It will be that way in perpetuity.
If the city were to impose a new light ordinance that increased how light city streets had to be - would you expect the first mention of the ordinance to be at city council or in a commission which went to the affected neighborhood association?Your choice of metaphor is ironic... when the city adopted the Dark Sky ordinance, there was no pblic engagement, no neighborhood meetings, no stakeholder outreach... I guess the level of public involvement that most people demand is whether they agree with the change or not.... if they disagree, they want heavy public discussion... if they agree, it's OK to streamline the decision-making process.
As long as students in Davis fail to vote and as long as students on campus can't vote in the city they will be ignored or worse by police and decision makers. This is not a public safety issue. Students walking with .01 blood alcohol are hardly at risk of being hurt as a result of their alcohol consumption. This is a behavior of young people control issue because the noise ordinance isn't enough for the neighbors. But don't take it personally kids they did the same thing with poor people as well voting to keep them out of a downtown church shelter because of problems caused by some homeless people in the area. Davis is notorious for abusing the homeless, people of color, and, of course, students.
In the sixties they said you're old enough to kill but not for voting. Today I say you are old enough to vote but not for drinking. You don't like the 60's generation oppressing you vote them out!
Yes Matt, some reflection in the mirror is good for everyone on occasion.
Toad, speaking of reflection, you and I should get together some time over a cup of coffee or something stronger. I'm in the phonebook. Give me a call some time at your convenience. Despite our differences on some issues I think sharing thoughts would be enjoyable for both of us.
The Vanguard again tosses a bunch of barely-related (certainly not related in the way alleged) and tries to make some eternal truth out of the mess. Then, kisses off commenters' views by claiming "it's not that simple...." and hint that they're racists to boot.
Of course, "it's not that simple" when if we conclude by making the case that this ordinance (to allow police to talk with kids who look to have been drinking) equates to a serious African-American demonstration six years ago.
P.S.--I'm not a racist. So, don't even start....
Not true about dark sky. There was a process then just as there is a process now. The difference is that we were not talking about arresting people for their lights.
Matt said:"It was that way when I was at Cornell in the '60s and '70's.' "
Yeah and when they passed the Rockefeller drug laws, clearly as tools of oppression, did you say no problem I love Rocky or did you say oh s**t?
I remember when Abby Hoffman got caught with a suitcase full of cocaine and the authorities claimed it was simply a drug case, the fact that Hoffman was a member of the Chicago Seven had nothing to do with it. Just as the Davis PD dismiss what they are doing claiming its a simple tool.
Remember when they found Rockefeller in that woman's bed after he had a heart attack and died? How many young people knew he had been doing to her what he did to all the stoners in New York with his drug laws. Yeah well guess what? Its the same thing the authorities want to do to the kids in Davis
Mr.Toad said . . .
"In the sixties they said you're old enough to kill but not for voting. Today I say you are old enough to vote but not for drinking. You don't like the 60's generation oppressing you vote them out!"
It is interesting to look back on those years. The drinking age in New York was 18 at the time and I'm not exactly sure how many of us survived. The experience all the states that reduced the drinking age from 21 to 18 (or 19) had made changing it back to 21 a very, very easy decision. I'm not sure that we ever get really good at multi-tasking, but drinking and doing anything else is to my mind very definitely multi-tasking.
Finally, I see "Students walking with .01 blood alcohol . . ." as qualifying for a parallel version of the old saying "you can't get a little bit pregnant. If you are going to achieve any level of blood alchohol stay in the place where you are imbibing until you reattain .00.
JMHO
I guess my thoughts are that
As long as students in Davis fail to vote and as long as students on campus can't vote in the city they will be ignored or worse by police and decision makers.Until such time that students living on or off campus, in UC owned facilities, are completely exempt from contributing to property tax, while the city has the burden of supplying many services they receive, IMHO they should not be ALLOWED to vote....
Mr.Toad said . . .
"Yeah and when they passed the Rockefeller drug laws, clearly as tools of oppression, did you say no problem I love Rocky or did you say oh s**t?"
Truth be known, I don't remember what or when the Rockefeller drug laws were. Can you refresh my memory?
"I remember when Abby Hoffman got caught with a suitcase full of cocaine and the authorities claimed it was simply a drug case, the fact that Hoffman was a member of the Chicago Seven had nothing to do with it. Just as the Davis PD dismiss what they are doing claiming its a simple tool."
If Abby had a suitcase full of cocaine, he needed to get Bill Clinton as a lawyer. The "I never inhaled" defense is robust in those situations.
"Its the same thing the authorities want to do to the kids in Davis."
You lost me on this one. What is it you think the authorities want to do to the kids in Davis?
Students walking with .01 blood alcohol are hardly at risk of being hurt as a result of their alcohol consumption.
It is my understanding that one of the three student pedestrians recently killed in traffic was believed to be intoxicated. "Walking while drinking" is DANGEROUS...
"I guess the level of public involvement that most people demand is whether they agree with the change or not.... if they disagree, they want heavy public discussion... if they agree, it's OK to streamline the decision-making process."On the other hand, what's wrong with bringing up items in the public forum of the City Council then determining whether the topic needs more discussion or not? Pretty standard stuff here.
The nonsense about "bringing the students along" with a series of heartfelt interactions before the City Council even looks at the issue is, well, nonsense. We're now down to a blip on the students' radar on this issue. (Hence, the need to tie it in to pepper-spraying, racial insensitivity, and, finally (thanks to Mr.Toad's extreme rant), The Holocaust.
Interestingly, the city (by expecting that this would be a business-as-usual topic) has played into the hands of the few who are moved to speak against the proposal (including the Vanguard, which now claims that by showing up the students vote no or by not showing up they vote no).
Mr. Toad: "Its the same thing the authorities want to do to the kids in Davis."Matt, maybe you missed Mr. Toad's wrap-up on this same topic yesterday? It's illuminating about the level of neurotic thinking that can go into a simple city ordinance, and, therefore, worth repeating in full:
Matt Williams: "You lost me on this one. What is it you think the authorities want to do to the kids in Davis?"
"Chief Black told the Council, 'We're trying to do this in our efforts for 2012's Picnic Day.' He added, 'Regardless of when it's adopted it's a good ordinance, it's not going to be just a Picnic Day ordinance.'Maybe you can have coffee with him sometime and figure this out.
So then is picnic day the problem or is it the Krystalnacht of Davis student oppression.
One thing I wonder is who thought this up did the chief come up with this on his own or is he representing some cabal of people in the city?"
Not true about dark sky.Nicely "dismissed, with the arrogance of not saying why. Were you here then? I was. Can you even say that there was one (or more) neighborhood meetings? There were not. Did the measure go to the Planning Commission? I will agree that thjere is a difference... lighting is not "behavior", nor does it go to individual responsibility. What I criticized is not the substance (abuse?) issues, but the gnashing of teeth about the PROCESS issues.
On the other hand, what's wrong with bringing up items in the public forum of the City Council then determining whether the topic needs more discussion or not?Absolutely nothing wrong with that... never said there was... an Australian wanting the city to consider having the city reverse the Coriolis effect in Davis, as a sign of support for the southern hemisphere, is welcome to so opine at a CC meeting during public comment (might even get two or three votes from the CC to refer it to staff, prepare a report, and agendize it for a future meeting).
What exactly is the problem we are trying to address? If it is ultimately to prevent injury or death as a result of alcohol consumption, then we should really be targeting males between the age of 21-35, as they are most likely to abuse alcohol. Or do we just want to catch some kids with a buzz, so they don't piss on our lawns?
I think the council should thank the Chief for the suggestion, but put their efforts towards education and prevention for alcohol abusers of all ages. A good start might be to stop the marketing of alcoholic beverages to young people.
"Absolutely nothing wrong with that... never said there was... an Australian wanting the city to consider having the city reverse the Coriolis effect in Davis...."Actually, I was agreeing with your somewhat cynical comment and trying to add to it, not argue against it.
Maybe the Australian has something*; we spend hours of City Council time listening to odd comments that will result in as much city action and to people making the case for selecting them for some commission.
Why can't these uncontrollable, hardly ending public comments be directed to a separate meeting of the council instead of using up time that could be used discussing important municipal issues?
-----
*My New Zealand relatives keep trying to convince me that their bathtub water goes down the drain the correct way. Maybe I can propose a city study to have the fireplace banner/bag burner commission look at whether we could improve water conservation by decelerating the rate it leaves our households.
Of course not Matt as Wavy Gravy said "Anyone who remembers the 60's wasn't really there."
Try it again Matt and put the whole thing together. It a two step problem the kind we want high school kids to be able to follow. I'm sure you can do it.
Remember when they found Rockefeller in that woman's bed after he had a heart attack and died? How many young people knew he had been doing to her what he did to all the stoners in New York with his drug laws. Yeah well guess what? Its the same thing the authorities want to do to the kids in Davis
"During our MLK Event, Osahon Ekhator said that as soon as he got a new car from his parents, he was pulled over seven times by the police."
Either he is lying about this or there were reasons other than the fact he is a minority. My guess is that it is a bit of both.
There is much more hate displayed against cops that there is evidence of racism from the cops. Tollerance and empathy should be universal should they not? What about tollerance and empathy for police given the job they are tasked to do? No matter what your ethnic make up, treating cops with respect when pulled over or when questioned goes a very long way in them responding in kind. If you distrust and dislike cops, it will come out and it will probably be a self-fullfilling prophecy.
It was the generation of the baby boomers that ramped up the cop-hating, military-hating social and political rhetoric. It was the same back then... mostly a bunch of drugged-out fun-seekers protesting the adult downers that wanted to ruin their fun high times. Now it is their kids doing the same. The apple apparently does not fall too far from the tree.
Mr.Toad: "This is not a public safety issue. Students walking with .01 blood alcohol are hardly at risk of being hurt as a result of their alcohol consumption."Or is it a little more than pissing on our lawn? Should we be concerned with those under 21-35 drinking, even though the rates are going down somewhat?
TimR: "What exactly is the problem we are trying to address? If it is ultimately to prevent injury or death as a result of alcohol consumption, then we should really be targeting males between the age of 21-35, as they are most likely to abuse alcohol. Or do we just want to catch some kids with a buzz, so they don't piss on our lawns?"
Quick internet search: "Each year, approximately 5,000 young people under the age of 21 die as a result of underage drinking; this includes about 1,900 deaths from motor vehicle crashes, 1,600 as a result of homicides, 300 from suicide, as well as hundreds from other injuries such as falls, burns, and drownings.Thank you, Chief, for thinking about our kids.
Yet drinking continues to be widespread among adolescents, as shown by nationwide surveys as well as studies in smaller populations.
According to data from the 2005 Monitoring the Future (MTF) study, an annual survey of U.S. youth, three-fourths of 12th graders, more than two-thirds of 10th graders, and about two in every five 8th graders have consumed alcohol.
And when youth drink they tend to drink intensively, often consuming four to five drinks at one time. MTF data show that 11 percent of 8th graders, 22 percent of 10th graders, and 29 percent of 12th graders had engaged in heavy episodic (or “binge1”) drinking within the past two weeks."
"And when youth drink they tend to drink intensively, often consuming four to five drinks at one time."
And how does this address the problem if they blow a .01 they are not binge drinking. If they are binge drinking the cops should know it. Drunk in public is already a crime. If you think this will work as a deterrent you are mistaken. It will work no better than any other form of prohibition. What it will do is make the kids hate and fear the cops more than they already do.
Mr.Toad, did you miss the point intentionally? Minors drinking is a big problem. Binge drinking is an aside, although every binge starts with a.01 at some point. The slippery slope, you know.
This is a public safety issue. It is not the first step toward the Police State of Davis.
