I wanted to wait until UC Davis sent me Chancellor Katehi’s response before I opined in this matter. Perhaps she would have the one explanation that made sense of this entire thing. But her response is more of the same: denial or responsibility even as the evidence begins to mount that castes doubt on her claims.
Here is her full statement, you can decide yourself based on the evidence if it is believable:
“I want to reiterate that I have never attempted to alter, influence or interfere with the admissions decision of any applicant to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
“As I have said before, I played absolutely no role in the admissions decisions regarding so-called Category I admissions at the Illinois. None of these activities or decisions happened at my level; they all happened at a higher level.
“As for the instance referred to in the latest Chicago Tribune article, I met Mr. Zemenides at an event in Chicago in early 2008, and he followed up with a written request for information on an applicant’s status. All I did was inquire as to the status of the student’s application, and nothing more. I took no action and made no effort to alter, influence or interfere with the admissions decision of this applicant.
“The student in question was going to be waitlisted, and that was the response I received to my inquiry. My response was simply to say, ‘Let’s not intervene in the decision to waitlist the student.’
“As provost, it is absolutely appropriate for me to make such inquiries or requests for status reports. I referred to Mr. Zemenides by his title simply because that was how I knew him.”
For the purposes of the point I will make here, nothing that she has said directly contradicts her ongoing claim from day one. At that time she claimed she was not involved in the admissions decisions and they were handled at a higher level in the institution.
This may still be an accurate statement. Again, nothing contradicts directly that statement. However, it was at the same time, not the FULL TRUTH. The standard of perjury is “the full truth” as that is the oath maintained, allowing the sin of omission is just as much part of perjury as the sin of commission, i.e. telling a falsehood.
And here is where Chancellor Katehi’s defense starts to get shaky in the knees. She told us she was not involved in the decisions and yet we see here passing on the emails where the decisions and process was occurring. She had to know of this involvement from the start but did not mention it in her initial statement. Is that not failing to tell the whole truth?
Likewise, she says that the admissions process was handled at a higher level in the institution. For one thing, the level does not go much higher than her as a No.2, but for another the decisions according to the emails appear to be made by her subordinate and she is copied on the emails. Again, she had to know of this from the start but failed to mention it. Again, is this not failing to tell the whole truth?
So we have a case where an individual has failed to come completely clean from the start about her role which while not necessary falling into the category of active commission has now fallen from non-participation to some more murky involvement. Had Ms. Katehi come clean about what the emails would reveal from day one, we might not be having this conversation right now.
However, at this point, why should we believe that her role was completely benign as she claims? What credibility does she have in issuing a denial as the truth has come out each time showing that she indeed had involvement in the process, which seemed obvious from the start that she must have.
Now we have a situation where at the very least she walked into a corrupt system and looked the other way as it continued. In fact, it was worse than that, because she passed emails through.
And to me this latest illustration really gets to the heart of the matter. She passed an email through giving full name and title to the individual making a special request. She argues that she “took no action made no effort to alter, influence or interfere with the admissions decision of this applicant” and yet at the same time she referred to an influential by name and title. Her claim, “that was how” she “knew him.”
In a clean system where one knows there is no influence peddling it might be acceptable to do that, but if you know there is high level influence peddling in the admissions process, is not aiding and abetting to present that information and pass it through the process?
To me that comes very close to a smoking gun. We have to suspend a lot of disbelief to accept that she just happened to pass through the title as an identifier, knowing what we know about the whole system.
Had she come clean about this from the start, we might accept the more benign explanation as plausible but probably dicey. But knowing that she did not come clean from the start, how much benefit do you want to give her that she wasn’t trying to influence the process?
Again to me what I see is not the overt instruction from her to push through the individual, but rather the more implicit, hey this guy is a powerful individual, and the implication to those below in the process may well have been obvious and that explicit instruction is left unsaid.
That is complete conjecture on my part. What we have missing are Katehi actually making those explicit instructions, what we have are her possibly making implicit wink and nods to the system.
What this exchange makes clear is that Katehi was involved in this scandal. We do not know her exact role, she needed to come clean about this involvement from the start, when she did not, we have to assume that she knew her involvement from the start and that she intentionally held back this information. To me that loses her thebenefit of the doubt.
It is rarely the actual crime of commission that causes the downfall of people in the position of Katehi. Had Nixon come clean from the start about his administration’s role in Watergate, he probably would have survived. It was his efforts to cover it up, that cost him the Presidency.
Katehi may well survive, but she has been very tarnished by the scandal. Her biggest crime to date is the failure to come clean from moment one, that will mean in future problems she will lack the benefit of the doubt. She may survive this one, but that lack of credibility may cost her in the long run.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Reporter Greenwald’s points and questions are well said. Fundamentally, they are “Why?”
Going back to the beginning of this mess, Katehi’s admissions domain is exposed and she is put under much stress. She was undoubtedly getting conflicting advice on how to “put the genie back in the bottle.” She avoids the media while she debates strategies. Yes, she could have said, “I inherited this improper admissions process when I arrived, and despite my concerns, it was condoned and supported by everybody around me. Ultimately, when UCD offered me a chance to escape this unsavory environment, I jumped at it.”
Now, we’ll all agree now that is what Katehi SHOULD have said. Intuitively, I think that is what she WANTED to say. But frantic and embarrassed advisers from two universities are telling her to go to damage control, meaning minimum damage to them, not her. The answer to the question, “Why,” is that Katehi listened to and obeyed the wrong people. Now it is poor Katehi that is walking off the gangplank.
As Mr. Greenwald noted, the more she talks, the worse it gets. Now, Katehi is her own earlier remarks and the cracks in the dam are getting ever bigger.
“Katehi may well survive . . “
The issue is no longer Katehi’s survival. Rather, it’s the survival of powerful public university systems in two states under close political scrutiny. Guess which one will be sacrificed to save the other?
If Katehi passed along emails, and made statements giving special information about the parents of an applicant, to me that is influence peddling. I don’t care if the influence peddling is done by inuendo or more specific. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…
The problem these days is we accept too little in the way of ethical behavior from those in upper management. “Walking a fine line” should not be good enough to get out from under ethical obligations. I expect better.
Is this who we want as Chancellor for UCD? In so far as I am aware, Vanderhoff had a spotless reputation, and at a lesser salary. Why should we hire his replacement as someone w a tarnished reputation at a 20% increase in salary. This is beyond stupid!
There’s this floating premise that we must pay “top dollar” to get the best people. It’s a total sham. When you offer top dollar you get the *greediest* people.
Ditch Katehi and re-offer the position at 20% less than Vanderhoef made. Skip the goodie-basket of ridiculous perks. Sure, pay reasonable relocation costs, but let it stop at that. The people you’ll get applying will be ones that actually want to do the job.
Varzil,
I think you are a little naive, and unfortunately, not alone.
Imagine for a moment that you are one of the best in your field and you go looking for someplace that needs whatever it is that you do so very well. There are ample options out there. Unless you have some truly compelling desire to go to just one place or just work for just one organization (not usually the case with many CEO types), for the most part all similar responsibility-level jobs are equal in their basic appeal. At some point the item for consideration that comes up is, “What is the compensation package?” All else being roughly equal, the job you continue to seek is the one that provides the greatest benefit for you and your family in exchange for your special qualifications and leave behind those that compensate unsatisfactorily.
Your utopian view of what might be nice if YOU could dictate what motivates people ignores human nature and reality. Of course, your impression about who is skilled enough to perform high level jobs, and your perception about what motivates people to seek those jobs, seems to be a common belief system of those who haven’t actually been there.
Now, I know a lot of junior and inexperienced people that think they have what it takes to lead an organization. They usually are deluding themselves. (Some day maybe…) However, if you decide that you are not going to offer potential candidates for a job opening something that will attract them to your organization, they are going to look and go elsewhere. What you end up with is the less qualified who, because they can’t compete in the rarified levels, see the substandard, less satisfactory, and non-competitive benefits package offered as more attractive than the best qualified candidates would be satisfied with. Sure, you’ll find someone to take the position. You may be lucky enough to find a diamond in the rough. But just as likely and logically more likely, you are going to find someone not fully prepared to do the job you ask of them.
Then you end up paying more anyway. Either in the actual dollars that it takes to repair their errors or to replace them when they fail; or in the loss of cache, professional reputation, or good-will that your organization might built up before becoming penny wise, but pound (dollar) foolish.
I don’t see a scandal here. I see Blog Boy failing and flailing in his continued war against the UC. First with the unions, and now with this. For the record, she’s not even at UCD yet, so you are trying to find fault with her before she even arrives, based on one email where she clarifies the background on an applicant. Then you try to extrapolate this teapot tempest into proof of a larger failing at an institution where she hasn’t even taken over leadership.
Go find a real scandal, other than moss growing around leaky pipes, councilpeople talking in monotone, teenagers questions by police while in pajamas, trespassing goatherders, or emails giving clarification.
To the man, woman, or ??? that logs on this blog and refers to David as “Blog boy” and tells him to find another story or scandal –
I find it interesting that you tell him he has no story and yet you take time from your day to read and comment. Are we to take this that either you do not have a life, or you’re just upset because he has exposed one of your scandals? Either way, it would be good to hear some intelligent discussion from you rather than just attacks. Or, you can go start your own blog. David’s coverage of this topic is not a “war” against UC it is covering an important story that we have not read in newspapers. If you don’t like it then don’t read it. Maybe you are one of the administrators taking money from students and you are just disgruntled.
David – I graduated from UCD and I am dismayed at how the university continues to charge students more money while increasing the pay to administrators. I have discontinued giving donations to the university until they get their act together. I know other friends and colleagues who have done the same. I appreciate your reporting on this important topic. I don’t know where else I would read about this topic if it was not on the Davis Vanguard. Keep up the good work.
Just wait for the federal and state investigations to collect all the evidence.
Someone delete a juicy email? No problem; the FBI has forensic computer experts that will piece it all together.
(I have used those experts before, and trust me, you TYPE it, they will GET it. You don’t even have to hit SEND.)
UCD is overpaying her, and should suspend or recind the contract with her pending the outcome of the Illinois investigation. Further, UCD owes it to itself and the California tax payers to conduct its own research into what occurred in Illinois. And why did she try to cover up her involvement in a “pay to admit” scheme?
My guess: 75% that she is never going to sit in the UCD chancellor’s office with her name on the door.
“…the FBI has forensic computer experts that will piece it all together.
(I have used those experts before, and trust me, you TYPE it, they will GET it. You don’t even have to hit SEND.)”
Whoa, that’s scary. Big Brother has arrived. But I’ll hit SEND anyway. I would note in passing, that one might always take one’s physical hard drive to the Yolo County landfill after wiping it. Nyah, Nyah, FBI.
PS: That trip to the landfill applies, of course, to the emails about which I don’t hit SEND.
Katehi is incredibly impressive. Over 200 publications, 43 Ph.D. students, plus her accomplishments as an administrator. She was an incredibly successful fundraiser at Purdue. She made $360,000 at Illinois, so $400,000 is a reasonable stipend.
It seems to me that sexism is behind some of the criticisms that we are seeing here.
“It seems to me that sexism is behind some of the criticisms that we are seeing here.”
You’re not even in the right zip code.
To Bill Thomas: Are you saying that Vanderhoeff was a mediocre UCD Chancellor? I thought he did a fine job, and at 20% less. David Murphy of DJUSD got paid more than the current Supt. – Hammond, and Murphy was an absolute disaster. Paying more for upper management does not guarantee you will receive more qualified applicants for a particular position.
Blog Boy Fail: “I don’t see a scandal here.”
If you don’t see a scandal here, that is bc either you choose not to see it, and/or your ethics are as questionable as Katehi’s.
“David Murphy of DJUSD got paid more than the current Supt. – Hammond, and Murphy was an absolute disaster.”
I think, in fact, that Hammond’s salary is more than Murphy’s was. I have to dig through some old news stories to verify.
Special admissions at UCLA during the 1990’s:
[url]http://articles.latimes.com/1996-03-21/news/mn-49655_1[/url]
Special admissions at UCLA’s orthodontics school in 2007:
[url]http://dailybruin.com/stories/2007/nov/13/donations-influence-admissions/[/url]
Don Shor: “Special admissions at UCLA during the 1990’s:
http://articles.latimes.com/19…mn-49655_1
Special admissions at UCLA’s orthodontics school in 2007:
http://dailybruin.com/stories/…dmissions/”
All the more reason not to have Katehi here at UCD, someone who would continue to perpetuate favoritism and a shadow admissions system.
Sexism? Give me a break. That is the weakest retreat. She is corrupt or complicit in corruption and everyone else is the problem? Absurd.
Try this instead: she was participating or complicit in a system that allowed over 800 unqualified students into a good university that other students deserved to be in but were left off of the admissions roles because they didn’t know powerful enough people. Katehi has robbed those kids of their potential futures and robbed our society of the contributions those kids could have made had they had access to the best education that they were entitled to.
Keep defending her, please.
“It seems to me that sexism is behind some of the criticisms that we are seeing here.”
This is a completely misinformed, thoughtless, and in, its own way, sexist comment.
This blog has hosted pretty hefty criticisms of Don Saylor, Bruce Colby, and Arnold Schwartzenegger. Is this blog supposed to to be treating her more delicately with more veiled criticisms because she is a woman?
If this were a man instead of a woman, I have a pretty good sense that the criticisms would be the same.
Interesting posts, Don Shor.
The best private Universities have a tradition of special admission for large donors. When Mike was teaching at Harvard, the students admitted under this custom were called “pledges”. We were frequently regaled with humorous anecdotes about the antics of students in the special, easy “pledge” classes.
As the California legislature, (and I assume the Illinois legislature has acted similarly) put more and more pressure on the University of California chancellors to raise private money to help fund the University, it does not surprise me to read that the chancellors at UCLA and other campuses would have a tendency to mimic the fundraising techniques of Harvard, Princeton and Yale, which includes special admissions for rich and connected. The chancellors are in a tough position; they are told to raise private money like the elite private institutions, but are held to a different standard, and a standard that makes fund-raising more difficult.
If we don’t like special admissions for the rich and connected, we should develop clear and enforceable rules against it. Apparently, some of these rules are already in place in California. When a potential donor asks for a favor, the chancellor needs to be able to say, “I would love to, but I can’t”, and to cite chapter and verse. The legislature, for its part, should be willing to contribute more to the University, since such rules will probably hurt the University’s private fund-raising effort.
Rather than being pilloried, chancellors should be required to take ethics courses that explain our specific laws and our expectations, much as local elected officials are. As we are taught in our ethics courses for elected officials, the rules and laws for those in the public sphere often differ from those in the private sector, and have to be learned and relearned, and that common sense is necessary but not sufficient when it comes to following those rules. We always have to study, refresh our knowledge, and contemplate the differences. It is a process that involves on-going education. The ethics education for U.C. administrators should be formalized, due to the difficulty of making decisions when faced with the conflicting pressures to raise money like private institutions but to refrain from using all of the standard tools to raise that money.
[i]The legislature, for its part, should be willing to contribute more to the University[/i]
Here’s an idea, Sue. What if the legislature contributes a little less per student each year for several years? Then what if it lets funding fall off of a cliff during a really bad year? And then, what if some legislators cover for their fiasco by wildly accusing UC of having finances that are as bad as Enron and AIG?
A tough stance, to be sure. But consider what effect it could have on ethics!
The July 4 Davis Enterprise article on Katehi is available at their website today (Monday, 7/6), free without subscription or password:
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/story.php?id=101.2[/url]
“The best private Universities have a tradition of special admission for large donors. When Mike was teaching at Harvard, the students admitted under this custom were called “pledges”. We were frequently regaled with humorous anecdotes about the antics of students in the special, easy “pledge” classes.”
Frankly, this cheapens a Harvard diploma. Shadow admissions systems dumb down our higher educational system, and weakens us as a nation.
Nothing better than to post a comment and watch the blog boy lovers rush to his defense. It’s called trolling, people, and we do it for the lulz.
[quote]New e-mails released by the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign suggest that Provost Linda Katehi – who arrives as chancellor of UC Davis next month – knew of and may have played a role in at least one of the improper “clout admissions” under investigation in that state.
Katehi, who has overseen admissions at the university since 2006, has repeatedly denied knowing anything about the secretive admissions known as “Category 1” that has led to about 800 underqualified but well-connected applicants being admitted to the flagship Illinois campus.
The e-mails, however, suggest a train of influence in which Katehi made inquiries and forwarded information about a wait-listed student after a political figure in Illinois contacted her about the applicant. When the student got in, Katehi pronounced the decision via e-mail as “excellent.”[/quote]
LINK ([url]http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/06/BARN18JUSS.DTL[/url])
Admissions based on other than academic criteria is corrupt. I’m glad so many people see it for what it is in the University of Illinois case. If we open your eyes and have some consistency and integrity then we will see that “affirmative action” in admissions is equally corrupting and unfair. Despite the fact that it is illegal under the California Constitution, race based decisions are still being made surreptitiously at UCD and the other UC’s (ask any staff or faculty member who has contact with the admissions process). This illegal activity, winked at and ignored, merits our condemnation more than anything Katehi did in Illinois.
” This illegal activity, winked at and ignored, merits our condemnation more than anything Katehi did in Illinois.”
So you think it’s worse for minority students to be allowed into UC’s than for high level political and other influential people to use their clout to get students who should not qualify into school? Really?
Using race in admissions is both despicable, illegal and racist.
Catering to the influential is despicable, but not illegal.
The issue here is Katehi’s lies and corruption. Will no Regent stand up and say enough and stop this hire?
Actually it is illegal, it’s called influence peddling, that’s why the FBI is investigating. Want to try again.
To Interesting:
Since you seem to agree that UCD is acting contrary to law in its current admissions procedures, why are you only focused on the problems of a chancellor who hasn’t yet arrived?
By the way, which statute is it that forbids “influence peddling”?
For now, that’s the topic of conversation both on this blog and in this community. I have no illusions that it is far from the only problem. As they come forward, I’m sure I will share my thoughts on them as well.
“By the way, which statute is it that forbids “influence peddling”?”
If it were not somehow illegal, the FBI would not be involved in this case. I’m sure the FBI is figuring out if any specific laws have been broken. Let’s assume for argument’s sake that no specific laws have been violated, which is a stretch. I can almost guarantee you that the U of I will change its admissions policies to stop the shadow admissions program, bc many alumni have stopped contributing, just as they have at UCD. Color me an optimist, but I don’t think people care for the thought that their alma mater’s admissions dept. is corrupted by “influence peddling”.
Sorry, need to change my name to fit the topic.
“By the way, which statute is it that forbids “influence peddling”?”
If it were not somehow illegal, the FBI would not be involved in this case. I’m sure the FBI is figuring out if any specific laws have been broken. Let’s assume for argument’s sake that no specific laws have been violated, which is a stretch. I can almost guarantee you that the U of I will change its admissions policies to stop the shadow admissions program, bc many alumni have stopped contributing, just as they have at UCD. Color me an optimist, but I don’t think people care for the thought that their alma mater’s admissions dept. is corrupted by “influence peddling”.