University Defends Bank Blocking Policies
Written by David Greenwald Saturday, 24 March 2012 05:59
The university has come under fire this week for their handling of the protests blocking U.S. Bank, that ultimately led to the bank attempting to get out of their ten-year contract and vacating the spot.
At a town hall meeting, Vice Chancellor John Meyer addressed campus staff and described the campus's patient, measured responses to the brief occupation of the former Cross Cultural Center and the almost daily blockade of the U.S. Bank branch in the Memorial Union.
"We think we've engaged an approach this quarter that is measurably positive," Vice Chancellor Meyer said.
According to the university, "The campus's new Engagement Team - several campus employees from different departments who have negotiating and mediating skills - has had regular contact with the protesters, talking with them, listening to their points about 'real issues' such as budget cuts and rising tuition; and trying to develop relationships."
In addition, in the case of the bank protest, the campus says it handed out notices to protesters explaining their rights and responsibilities - advising that blocking people from entering or exiting the bank "is an illegal act," Vice Chancellor Meyer said.
Eventually, the campus has forwarded six cases to the Yolo County District Attorney's office, for possible prosecution as misdemeanors.
However, all university spin aside, the efforts by the university were not enough for the bank to stay.
The university remains hopeful that they can mediate it in further talks with the bank.
"We're disappointed that U.S. Bank has indicated that it wants to leave after UC Davis worked with students to find creative financial solutions during these difficult budget times," said Associate Vice Chancellor Emily Galindo of Student Affairs.
In the March 1 letter to the Regents, US Bank Senior Vice President Daniel Hoke wrote, "U.S. Bank advised the Regents of their default resulting from the faculty and student protest at the Branch."
Most provocatively, he called the employees virtual prisoners, writing, "The employees of U.S. Bank who, at times, arrived prior to the protesters, were effectively imprisoned in the Branch."
Protesters vehemently deny the claim, arguing that the employees were allowed access both in and out of the building.
Mr. Hoke continued, "For well over a month now, U.S. Bank has been deprived of the use of the Branch because of the human barricade formed by the students and faculty in front of the door to the Branch. Notwithstanding the repeated demands of U.S. Bank, the Regents have not provided access to the Branch."
"The Regents have refused to remove or arrest the persons participating in the illegal gathering even though the Regents have used available laws to disperse protestors who have congregated elsewhere on the University's campuses," he continued adding, "Instead of trying to disperse the illegal gathering, the Regents allowed the blockade to continue. It has become clear that the Regents will not disperse the protestors and are content to allow the blockade of the Branch to continue. U.S. Bank, however, cannot permit the risk of physical injury to continue, and it cannot continue to suffer economic loss."
Mr. Hoke writes, "In light of the above, there is no doubt that U.S. Bank has been constructively evicted from the Branch due to the repeated and unabated breach of the covenant of quiet possession. The Regents have been given notice of their default and have failed to cure it."
The university, however, fired back in a letter from Greg Haworth, who noted that there are eight years remaining on the lease and, "The Bank's position and its conduct over the past several weeks are contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Financial Services Partnership Agreement and the Lease."
As we noted in our commentary last week, the University responded to November 18 protests with an over-the-top response to a largely non-disruptive activity of occupying the Quad. By using pepper spray, which violated the sensibilities of most people in this community, the university has hamstrung its further efforts to deal with protests.
The university ought to be able to effect an arrest of peaceful protesters without an escalated use of force. If they cannot do so, perhaps it really is time to disband the UC Davis police force and allow the City of Davis' police force to expand their jurisdiction.
Some have reacted to the bank protest, taking the side of US Bank and calling them "victims" in this battle.
We believe that the bank overreacted to the situation in the Memorial Union. We note that two recent Occupy events have shown that this is a relatively small group of activists that are largely disorganized.
Last Friday, the blockade of Monsanto on Russell Blvd in Davis was successful because Monsanto decided to opt for non-confrontation - a good idea. The weather was non-cooperative, with heavy rains, and the protest turnout was light, shrinking as the day went on.
In better weather, a tweet went out on Tuesday calling for the Occupy Movement to march from Central Park to City Hall. That march never materialized and a small handful of Occupiers would eventually come to the public comment at the City Council meeting to complain about being ejected from Central Park on the previous Friday night.
We certainly fault the underreaction by UC Davis in the handling of the bank protests. It is worth noting that they continue to defend that failed policy plan.
"We engaged in a day-after-day-after-day effort to try to engage with the individuals," university spokesperson Barry Schiller said. "Our goal was not to send out police and create daily flashpoints that would not solve anything."
However, at the end of the day, we believe that the US Bank used this as a point of convenience to leave. The contract with the university probably did not work out like they wanted it.
The logo on the card drew the ire of many students who were concerned with the commercialization of the campus. Less than ten percent of students utilized the service, far less than they had hoped for.
So when the protesters came and the university was less than decisive with their reaction, US Bank, rather than holding firm and believing that this would be temporary, simply packed their bags and left.
As UC wrote in their response letter: "The Bank has not conducted itself in the spirit of the Financial Services Partnership Agreement. The Regents asked repeatedly for the Bank's assistance and collaboration in addressing the problems created by the protesters, and the Bank has either outright refused to provide such assistance or has delayed responding in a manner that has caused reasonable suspicion that the Bank was not genuinely interested in maintaining a long-term presence at the Davis campus."
We believe that the university is exactly right here, and the bank was not genuinely interested, for a number of reasons, in maintaining a long-term presence.
Teri Charest, spokesperson for U.S. Bank, said earlier this week that the bank closed the branch on the UC Davis campus because the protesters made it impossible to do business.
"Our concern was our inability to conduct business and the safety of our branch employees, and the ability of customers to come and go from the branch," Ms. Charest said.
She would add, "U.S. Bank is still committed to providing the service to the community and the area" and that it was too soon to speculate as to whether the bank might reopen on the campus.
Mr. Schiller added, "We have offered to the bank to mediate this dispute. I don't know whether the bank will be amenable to that."
---David M. Greenwald reporting
"I was questioned about this last week and cited links that disproved that theory."I didn't say that you really would have given UCD officials a hard time if they yanked these demonstrators, just that some readers might think that. You know how folks are sometimes.
"Joshua CloverAre you sure he was involved, J.R.? He's paid as a poet, but also claims interest in Marxism..
Professor of English
Education & Interests: MFA (University of Iowa). Interests include poetry and poetics, film studies, Marxist/post-Marxist theory and political economy."
Wouldn't he be too busy teaching classes to sit around blockading a bank, whining about students not getting adequate, free education? Of course, that would explain the high quality of the website, the statements, etc. What's your basis for claiming he was involved?
Me: Civil disobedience has consequences. Behavior has consequences."
Don: Yes, I always thought getting arrested was part of the point of civil disobedience.
I really did not know that. So, the kids are protesting hoping to be arrested? Is that their primary goal? I thought their primary goal was to draw media attention.
Drawing attention is the goal, getting arrested draws attention and makes the larger point about laws and rules that enforce whatever status quo is being protested. So when George Clooney joins a protest outside the Sudanese embassy about the plight of the residents of the Nuba mountains (a very worthy cause, IMO), his arrest called attention to the issue. And so he went willingly, smiling for the reporters.
If you think something is a serious enough issue that you'll break the law to bring it to the public's attention, you should be willing to go to jail over it.
Are you sure he was involved, J.R.?
Yes. I saw him there acting as a spokesman for the group.
For some evidence, see
http://www.newsreview.com/sacr...id=4980009
and
http://www.theaggie.org/2012/0...mpus-bank/
and
http://www.theaggie.org/2012/0...ca_usbank/
To David (DMG):
I said, "This is an important question because this would help the Admin understand your expectation in order to draft policies that you will agree."
You said, "If they are relying on my advice, they are in worse shape than I thought."
Telling the Admin what you expect is not the same as giving the Admin advice. One of my biggest concerns is that the Pepper Spray Report is correct but not understood by Occupy and those who do not share the same expectations and languages as the Admin. When that happens, there could be another wave of damage to the community. Such a threat can be neutralized by resolving differences in language and expectations beforehand through discussion.
You maintained that US Bank left too early. Given that the blockade does not escalate into something else and remains non-violent, how long or under what condition would be 'long enough' for you to conclude that US Bank had made a good faith effort to stay? If you believe that US Bank should not leave if the blockade remain non-violent, could you explain who should cover their losses?
My stance is that the blockade is dishonorable because it is exploiting the good will of the legal/law enforcement system for a political expression. The law enforcement system is not and should not be designed to handle political conflicts. Instead of having a blockade, the protesters could have hosted public forums to discuss what to do with the branch. That would have been a legal, inclusive, and constructive approach I expect from a university environment. They should be inviting the community for a discussion because they should have every reason to believe that they can address the concerns of the community and unite it for a just cause. Failure to do so is a sign of dishonesty and illegitimacy.
In the case of Nathan Brown (Assistant Professor in English), shown here on the right, there is already evidence of dishonesty because in his Nov19 letter calling for Chancellor's resignation, he claimed that "When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats." There is no evidence that this ever happened and it appears that Brown never cared to make correction or clarification. Making false accusation might be careless. But keeping false accusation uncorrected is unethical. Professors should first and foremost serve as ethical models for the students.
If you believe that different types of adults have different levels of responsibility, then what sort of responsibility should Brown have?
* * *
You said, "They had a ten year contract expected to pay out around $3 million at minimum. It seems a few months into a protest was a little early to leave." What you said sounded like US Bank was expecting to earn $3 Million over ten years. But according to NewsReview, it is UC Davis that is expecting to earn $3 Million over ten years from US Bank. Could you clarify your meaning?
AdRemmer
"You wouldn't make a diagnosis to one of your patients when you didn't have all the facts and/or before all of the test results are in, would you?"
On the contrary, in medicine, especially in my field we frequently have to act before " all the facts or test results are in". Sometimes, the situation just speaks for itself. If a woman comes into the hospital hemmorrhaging, I will certainly act immediately to save her life rather than waiting the 20 minutes it may take to get back a blood test.
For me ( possibly not for you) the hours of taping ( much of it obviously unedited and uncut) spoke for itself.
Back to the clinic/bank analogy for a moment, I cannot show you current photos of protesters inside clinics. I am also fairly sure that you cannot provide me with names of bank executives or tellers shot and killed by protesters such as I can provide for doctors and clinic workers. The analogy is comparative, not exact.
The analogy is comparative, not exact.
There are at least two important differences between the examples:
1. In the case of the medical clinics, local police are generally involved to make sure that the activities of the protestor remain legal, and allow the clinic to remain open, and the clinics are not invaded by the protestors. In this case, UCD Police were allowing the bank to invaded, and periodically they would lock the doors, preventing CUSTOMERS from entering and the bank would close on many days. Therefore, the viability of the bank as a business location was severely impeded because the bank was unable to conduct its businesses - as opposed to the clinics were the business was protected by the police and the community.
2. Any doctor who kept himself and his employees in harms way would like have felt a strong moral obligation to serve his clients, and not let the protestors impede the client's right to the services. In this case, there is another US Bank branch in town, and services could be rendered in a much safer location.
Edgar Wai: "My stance is that the blockade is dishonorable because it is exploiting the good will of the legal/law enforcement system for a political expression. The law enforcement system is not and should not be designed to handle political conflicts. Instead of having a blockade, the protesters could have hosted public forums to discuss what to do with the branch. That would have been a legal, inclusive, and constructive approach I expect from a university environment."
Excellent! I agree.
David: "And best way to do that is to show that the authorities are unreasonable through arrest or getting beat up.."
Frankly, I think this method of exploiting the very difficult job of law enforcement has always been disgusting. It is indicative of a certainly laziness and lack of organization on the part of the protestors. How difficult is it to create a mob/party to stir up trouble so the cops HAVE to deal with it? Not very. Maybe they need a good community organizer. They can hire Obama after the next election.
David, I'm disappointed that--after all the time you've been doing this--you still print anonymous quotes with your characterizations that imply your belief that you're being accurate and, then, use them to support your conclusions. And, then, kiss them off when people call you on the statements.
Your readers have no way to judge whether you hear these things from reliable sources or just make them up for convince. As you conduct your announced look at your standards, please note that this is one of the Vanguard's most significant, repetitive journalistic failings.
Well said!
David: "And best way to do that is to show that the authorities are unreasonable through arrest or getting beat up.."
I strongly disagree. IMO the safest, more effective, most democratic way is as Edgar Wia and Jeff Boone have pointed out:
Edgar Wai: "My stance is that the blockade is dishonorable because it is exploiting the good will of the legal/law enforcement system for a political expression. The law enforcement system is not and should not be designed to handle political conflicts. Instead of having a blockade, the protesters could have hosted public forums to discuss what to do with the branch. That would have been a legal, inclusive, and constructive approach I expect from a university environment."
Frankly, I think this method of exploiting the very difficult job of law enforcement has always been disgusting. It is indicative of a certainly laziness and lack of organization on the part of the protestors. How difficult is it to create a mob/party to stir up trouble so the cops HAVE to deal with it? Not very. Maybe they need a good community organizer.
But then the democratic way, the safer way, the more effective way that does not trample on other peoples' rights takes considerably more effort... mob rule is easy...
Persevere. To continue my analogy, this is exactly what clinics providing abortion services, as well as many other health care services have had to do.
Suppose an abortion clinic was blocked by protestors, and the police refused to clear them away and to allow access for weeks, till the abortion clinic finally decides to close down and relocated to another nearby location where the police don't allow its doors to be blocked.
You would blame the clinic for not persevering? It's not the fault of the community that didn't enforce the law or the protestors who broke the law?
Looks like moral confusion to me.
""You bet the university police are avoiding the situation - it appears at least six of them are headed for discipline (and may lose their jobs) for the pepper spraying incident. Katehi still doesn't know whether she is going to hold onto her job. Can you blame the university/university police for being overly cautious? Perhaps you can, but then you are not walking in their shoes..."
Anyone who holds a position of authority or responsibility is "walking in their shoes" throughout their career. If one of my colleagues makes a mistake that causes serious injury to a patient, or even their death, what is needed is a thorough review of what happened and how it can be avoided in the future. It doesn't mean that we stop doing our job. We don't stop taking care of patients. Even those with similar conditions or situations. Likewise I am sure that if a colleague loses a case through an error, I am fairly sure that you would continue to take on new clients.
So, yes, I do assign responsibility to the police for not doing their job.
With regard to my example of a clinic. Yes, I would blame them if they gave up after only a couple of months of police inaction. Clinic have a moral obligation to the patient's in the communities they serve. We have a name in medicine for quitting under similar circumstances. It's called patient abandonment and is not highly regarded in the medical community. I see no moral ambiguity here. The clinicians have an obligation to keep these practices open, and indeed have frequently done so under threats to the lives of themselves and their staffs. The police have an obligation to keep the clinics unblocked and the participants protected. Both groups need to do their job. Where is the ambiguity ?
It is a stretch to expect US Bank should have the same level of commitment to an abortion clinic because there is no ethical code that dictates the branch should stay open to serve the students. As indicated in the language of the Mar12 Letter, shutting down the MU branch is just a matter of going to the main branch at F street. The presence of US Bank on campus is mainly a result of business negotiation. As of now, there is no sign that the University intends to cover the lost of US Bank, nor to let US Bank employ their own security to deal with the blockaders.
Ref: "At one point, US Bank went as far as to hire private security guards to stand watch outside the branch, but they were recalled after the university said they weren't acceptable."
Ref: "Despite sustained efforts at intimidation by bank managers, private security guards, UC Davis police and administrators, the bank blockade stood its ground, even when faced with arrest threats, student judicial sanctions, and physical confrontations."
It should be expected that if UC Davis waives US Bank the rent, and pays for its employee and business losses, US Bank would really have no reason to leave. US Bank is not complaining that they don't get to serve the students. US Bank is complaining that no one is paying for their loss while they still have to pay rent and their employees.
UC Davis should have the liberty to choose and to try any legal mediation method as long as they remain accountable to the affected parties. In this case, the affected party is US Bank. UC Davis can ask for US Bank's cooperation to try new mediation methods, but US Bank is not obligated to cooperate. UC Davis should pay for the damages caused by their attempt to mediate instead of arrest (as US Bank expected). When UC Davis insists US Bank not to use private security, UC Davis becomes accountable unless US Bank waived UC Davis that accountability.
On the other hand, US Bank could also choose to forgive UC Davis and preserve. If US Bank does that, it would be an honorable act, not an obligation. Legally this is messy because of the contract. But ethically US Bank does not need to stay because UC Davis is not picking up the bills.
If this is the situation, UC Davis needs to be very clear about its tone because it cannot sound like US Bank is being a whim for leaving. UC Davis should clarify what agreement was made (if any), when they asked US Bank not to use their security guards.
First reference link was bad. Corrected:
Ref: "At one point, US Bank went as far as to hire private security guards to stand watch outside the branch, but they were recalled after the university said they weren't acceptable."
