The bottom line I think for myself is that at first the chancellor did not answer questions about what happened during her tenure at the University of Illinois. When she did, her answers seemed in contradiction to the facts that emerged. In short, she has not been forthcoming with information that explains her exact role. While I agree that nothing has come forward is a smoking gun in terms of her involvement, at the same time the answers and statements that she has given have failed to put this issue to rest.
I do not believe anyone questions her credentials either as a scholar and an administrator. She may well end up being an excellent chancellor for UC Davis. That should not excuse her from being more forthright about her role in the scandal at the University of Illinois.
This column will respond to some of the points raised in Friday’s Enterprise by Professor Walter Leal and his colleagues.
They write:
“It is unfortunate that Katehi arrives under an undeserved and over-hyped cloud of controversy, as concerns about admission irregularities at the University of Illinois have grabbed news media attention. We further believe that undue attention has focused on her compensation as UC Davis chancellor.”
This obviously blurs two separate issues. The issue of her compensation comes forward as she received a $100,000 increase over her predecessor at the same time the university system is facing furloughs and cutbacks, the likes of which we really have not seen. In the bigger picture it is obviously merely symbolism, but it seems that when you are raising tuition for students and cutting back on a variety of classes and furloughing employees, that is not the time to throw out $400,000 in compensation to your new Chancellor. In times of turmoil, leaders are expected to step up and sacrifice.
However, that is separate from the issue of the admission irregularities. The reason the media has focused on the chancellor which they call undeserved is actually quite simple, she did not come forward with an accurate and complete accounting of her role in the scandal. First she took no comment which of course always draws more scrutiny. Then she claimed to have no role in the scandal and claimed these decisions were made above her head. We then discovered emails that showed her subordinates making these decisions and that her name was on it. Still she denied a role. We then discovered emails where she served as the conduit even pointing out the privileged position of some of the benefactors. Again she has denied involvement.
Her answers are quite simply not credible and thus even though there is no evidence of her playing a direct role in this scandal, her failure to put the scandal to rest is attributable to her own actions. The media get blamed by continuing to focus on the discrepancy between her answers and the known facts, I do not understand what else the media is supposed to do.
“The personal attacks launched against Katehi sadden us.”
This line really concerns me. I have not seen a personal attack against the Chancellor. It has come to the point that any criticism of an individual is viewed as personal attack. Most of what I have read amounts to questions and inquiries, I have yet to see a personal attack upon the chancellor.
“Investigations that focus on apparent impropriety rather than innocence considerably alarm us, and newspaper headlines on this subject are misleading by design.”
I am not certain what the first part of this sentence means. Investigations are supposed to focus on the facts of what occurred. There are key questions now about the chancellor’s conduct that should be answered. I have acknowledged many times that the evidence so far is sufficient to ask questions there is no direct evidence of wrongdoing. Still she has not sufficiently or credibly addressed how it came to be where she sent an email to an admissions official explaining who a prominent member of the Greek community was. The only way she is not culpable is if she had no idea that influence peddling was occurring.
In passing a student’s info to the Vice Provost (her subordinate) she wrote:
“Endy Zemenedis [sic] is the campaign manager for the State Treasurer,” she wrote. “This is the application of the daughter of a fairly prominent Greek family in Chicago.”
So she has identified the individual making the request as the campaign for the State Treasurer. And she also identified the student as the daughter of a influential and wealthy Chicago family.
Her explanation for doing this was:
“I referred to Mr. Zemenides by his title simply because that was how I knew him.”
She just happened to refer to both the individual making the inquiry by his title and also the family by their status in the Greek community. Perhaps if she had no knowledge of the influence peddling this would merely be an unfortunate coincidence. And perhaps that is truly all that it really was. But her explanation on the surface is simply not believable. If the professors want to defend her role here, perhaps they can actually get into some specifics and explain this quote.
Moreover, I have not seen a single misleading newspaper headline. In short, this defense makes a lot of accusations without any specifics.
“We believe any questions concerning irregularities in the Category I admissions at the University of Illinois should remain in Illinois. Indeed, Katehi addressed these issues earlier in The Davis Enterprise, offering no evidence for a smoking gun or impropriety. So why are her actions and apparent intentions still front-page news?”
The answer to their question is that her defense seems to be contradicted or at least put into question by additional information that has come out in a series of individuals.
“Unless concrete evidence exists that would disqualify Katehi to perform her duties and responsibilities as UC Davis chancellor – who, by the way, is not only an excellent administrator, but will be the first female chancellor in the history of our campus – we believe the greater Davis community should welcome her wholeheartedly – beginning with The Davis Enterprise.”
I suspect that people will welcome the Chancellor but regardless, she has not been forthcoming with a credible explanation here and that is why this incident has continued to draw scrutiny. The professors here have not done her any service. They have not addressed anyone’s specific concern and instead defend her in generalities. They utterly dismiss any concerns that have been raised and ignore the fact that her defense and comments is not completely in line with the facts that emerge.
They then as many have done in the past, turn this onto the media itself. They blame the media for raising the questions, question the propriety of the media raising the question, and dismiss any questions as personal attacks.
Many of these are indeed preeminent scholars at UC Davis and there is no doubt that these are individuals of great respect, nevertheless, I think the community is entitled to answers here that they have not received and until that happens, the requests of these scholars cannot be heeded.
For me questions are fairly simple–how is that the chancellor has come to pass on emails to her underlings if she had no involvement in the admissions policies and the decisions to admit students were made overhead and how could she not have known that passing along the privilege status of one individual would lead to a student being admitted whose scores alone would not have gained that admission.
This is not a personal attack on the Chancellor. This is simply a question that has not been sufficiently or credibly addressed. Some have suggested that because I have repeatedly asked this question implies that I have an agenda against the Chancellor. On the contrary, I have nothing against the Chancellor, she could become an excellent asset to the university. I simply view my role in the capacity of the Vanguard to ask these kinds of questions of public officials or people in positions of great power and influence. It is not personal in the least. I wish the Chancellor great success, while at the same time, I express the wish that she be more forthcoming about her role.
As we expressed last week, had she been more forthcoming, this would have been put to rest long ago. Instead, we have more questions than answers.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Here are your Katehi headlines:
“Commentary: New Chancellor’s Tenure Already Stained with the Fee Hikes of Students”
“New UC Davis Chancellor Needs To Answer Tough Questions on Scandal (UPDATED 3:00 PM)”
“Documents Cast Doubt on Chancellor Katehi’s Denial in Illinois Scandal “
“Commentary: Katehi Still Needs to Come Clean Before We Can Move On”
“Guest Commentary: New UC Chancellor Unfit to Serve”
“New Chicago Tribune Report Appears to Directly Link Katehi to Scandal”
“Commentary: Why Do People Fail To Heed The Real Lesson of Watergate and All Scandals – Tell The Whole Truth Immediately”
“Prestigious Scholars Come to Katehi’s Defense But Fail To Address Specific Concerns”
While it’s true that none of them are necessarily misleading, it’s also true that they mostly have negative tone and tend to be more inflammatory than your actual reporting. That’s an age-old technique in newspapers to get people to read, but it’s important to recognize that tendency. It’s also the case that your headlines are usually like this when you are writing about individuals who you have an issue with (Saylor, the City Council in general, the Fire Dept, etc). In contrast, your headlines are embarassingly cheery and positive when you write about individuals who you like (Lamar, Hammond, etc.). Maybe not good or bad, but interesting nonetheless.
I think the whole story is nonsense and agree with the letter writers. However I just thought they were brown nosing the new boss. The only people who care about this stuff are people who are still upset about Bakke.
Bakke? Boy, that’s an old one.
The people who are upset about Chancellor Linda Katehi are graduates such as myself who are no longer giving money to the university. The others who are upset are those who did not get in because admission spots were given to the children of elected officials in Illinois.
Katehi may have the credentials, but her unethical actions tarnish UCD.
I think the letter writers are just brown nosing the new boss too.
Keep asking the questions David. Someone has to.
I read the op ed endorsement by the group of professors, and with all due respect to each of them, it read like brown nosing the new boss. It was pretty much a win-win for the profs: if she survives the investigation and stays, then she will remember who came to her defense. If she does not successfully start here, then everyone else in senior Admin Land at Mrak Hall will remember that they stood up for her.
DPD identified the glaring problem with the op ed piece: it did not rebut the specific allegations that are coming out of Illinois. They are scientists, so they should stick to the data and stay out of politics.
I took it as a fluff piece written for political purposes, not to further the factual discourse.
The FBI and Illinois investigations will get all the emails, notes, admissions documents. “The facts, Ma’am, nothing but the facts.” Time will tell. Meanwhile, I think that UCD should put her hiring on hold, pending the full reports from Illinois.
Even if those agencies don’t tag her directly with law breaking or unethical conduct, her claims to not know about a well established, long time, and public program in her own department suggests either: she is incompetent; or a liar. Either one should end her job prospects here.
I’m glad to see this came up again on the Vanguard, because something that has been missing in this entire attack on Katehi, is the massive set-aside categories for sports, low-income, special needs, and on and on. So, if there are set-sides for applicants whose families might pony up some money for the already strapped educational systems…I have no problem with that. This is beginning to look very much more like a hit piece on a woman who has risen to a top administrative post, instead of it going to, yet again, a good ole’ white boy type.
No smoking gun? How about the mention of the parent’s title, status and heritage? To me that was most definitely a smoking gun! Did she specifically say “I want this student fast tracked to admission over other more qualified students.”? No. But it was implied by the mention of the applicant’s parent’s impressive title and connections – wink, wink, nod, nod. I am not willing to let this woman off the hook bc she is clever enough to flout ethics and common decency indirectly. The circumstantial evidence is there. IMHO, she is a sad excuse for UCD Chancellor, regardless of her impressive credentials. (One has to wonder if those credentials were earned or not, or did she get favorable treatment to attain them?)
Worse yet, the proponents of this woman concede apparent impropriety, and don’t seem at all concerned about it. That says to me that these faculty members don’t have very high ethical standards themselves. This explains why the UC system has its own fast track admissions policy for the children of the wealthy that Don Shor referred us to. There is no question in my mind that federal/state law needs to be enacted to stop these practices. They are obscene, unfair, and antithetical to a democratic society. There should be a level playing field in admissions in terms of parental/student income/influence.
For these faculty to argue she knew nothing is to argue she is stupid/incompetent. If emails were coming to her, and she was forwarding them along, she had an ethical obligation to know what she was forwarding. Frankly, I don’t find her claim of no knowledge remotely credible. To argue she deserves the job as Chancellor just bc she is a woman is sexist and inane. Of course these faculty were arguing in generalities, bc they could not defend the specifics relating to her unethical behavior!
I wish the proposed Chancellor every success – outside any college system, and elsewhere where she can do no more damage. To attack the media for “pressing” the issue is disingenuous at best.
When you get an email you can do various things with it or nothing at all. She could have deleted it or forwarded it or read it and closed it or filed it. Forwarding it was an affirmative act so of course she is complicit but so what?
This is only a story for those who think the world began yesterday. If we demand a perfect enrollment system we will never have it because there are too many variables for a mechanistic approach to enrollment; grades are not equal across all schools and all tests are biased by the experiences and preparation of both those writing and taking them. Even talent is reflective of the competition as much as the statistics. The fact that the system in IL. was gamed by people who were connected and that the new head of UCD was part of the system that played the game is of little concern to me. What is of concern are things like undocumented kids who grew up in CA not getting financial aid, that Cal Grants are on the chopping block, that furloughs and layoffs are in the cards, that class sizes are increasing, that the quality of education in CA is going to suffer. Equality in admissions is pretty far down on the list right now even though it certainly validates that affirmative action at the top demands that you have something close to the same at the bottom.
I find it interesting reading your post. On the one hand you acknowledge the problem. On the other hand, you seem almost defeatist in accepting it. It’s almost like, stuff happens, life moves on, we shouldn’t hope for anything better. I’m not sure that’s the right approach.
I just think there are bigger fish to fry.
[i]Most of what I have read amounts to questions and inquiries, I have yet to see a personal attack upon the chancellor.[/i]
Except that you haven’t just been asking questions. I don’t know how you can read a title like “Unfit to Serve”, which you published in two forums, as just asking questions. I don’t know how you can read a title like “The Real Lesson of Watergate and All Scandals”, which is your own title, as just asking questions. Declaring that Katehi is unfit to serve is an attack on her career, not a question. Lecturing Katehi that she has made Nixon’s mistakes is an attack on her character, not a question.
You’re right about one thing, though. Just asking questions is what you should be doing. There is an investigation into the UIUC admissions scandal under the authority of the state of Illinois. It’s called the Admissions Review Commission. They have a web site, they post the audio of their hearings, they have a box that says “Post Your Comments or Ideas”, and there are other ways to contact them as well. You should talk to them instead of trying to corner Katehi yourself with “questions” and outright accusations.
Greg: Just because I ran the op-ed written by the President of AFSCME doesn’t mean that reflects my views on the subject. I’ve never personally stated that I think she is unfit to serve. I do believe that she should have been more forthcoming with answers from the start and that had she done so, we would have been more likely to have moved on by now.
[i]Just because I ran the op-ed written by the President of AFSCME doesn’t mean that reflects my views on the subject.[/i]
That’s great. But what you said was that you didn’t see any personal attacks on Katehi, not just that you didn’t write any yourself.
As for your own piece, it’s a big leap from saying that she “should have been more forthcoming”, to comparing her to Nixon. Nixon was corrupt and he was a liar — there were huge reasons that he wasn’t forthcoming. Again, if you compare her to Nixon, that is an attack on her character. If all you had said was that Katehi should be more forthcoming, that would have been different.
That piece also made the false argument that officials should tell journalists the whole truth immediately as if they were under oath. You’re right that when you’re under oath, you should tell the whole truth. But journalists have no business putting people under oath or pretending to. It’s fine and even noble for journalists to investigate, but they have no business trying people in the court of public opinion. Because, of course, the court of public opinion makes up its own rules.
That is why the investigation in Illinois, not fusillades of questions aimed at Katehi, is the real way to move on.
Greg:
Re-reading the piece by Ms. Harrison I don’t think it was a personal attack, although in isolation the headline was provocative.
This is the key point:
“There are only two conclusions that can be inferred from Katehi’s denials: either Dr. Katehi was complicit in this corruption and has chosen to remain silent for purposes of self-preservation, or she is a doe-eyed fool.
In either case, she is unfit to be a chancellor of the University of California.”
The language is clearly provocative here–intentionally so. Probably a bit more colorful that I would have written. But even this, doesn’t rise to the level of a personal attack. Her point is simply that either she failed to blow the whistle or she was naive and either of those are a problem given her position. You may disagree with that conclusion, but I don’t think that is a personal attack.
“As for your own piece, it’s a big leap from saying that she “should have been more forthcoming”, to comparing her to Nixon.”
I compared her error of failing to come forward with information from the start to Nixon not necessarily her conduct.
“That piece also made the false argument that officials should tell journalists the whole truth immediately as if they were under oath.”
I don’t believe I made that argument. My argument was that her failure to come forward with a full accounting of her role led to the next two articles that appeared to contradict her previous accounts. From a political standpoint (not a legal one) that is an error.
But what if she had come clean and admitted she was in on it people would have called for her head anyway.
[i]But even this, doesn’t rise to the level of a personal attack[/i]
You’re splitting hairs. What Harrison said was that Katehi is either corrupt or incompetent. If anyone said that about you, of course you’d take it as a personal attack.
[i]I compared her error of failing to come forward with information from the start to Nixon not necessarily her conduct.[/i]
Then why stop at Nixon? Why not Charles Manson? That was also one of Manson’s mistakes, not telling the truth immediately.
[i]I don’t believe I made that argument.[/i]
It was the argument you implied when you said, “The standard of perjury is “the full truth” as that is the oath maintained.” You were talking about Katehi as if she were speaking under penalty of perjury.
Of course Katehi doesn’t owe you the full truth, because you don’t owe her due process. You can’t demand one without guaranteeing the other.
As for the scandal, the Admissions Review Commission has not so far suggested that Katehi’s role was important. If you can get them to say otherwise, that would be very interesting. If they say or imply that she played no important role, then that does suggest that you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.
The hypocrisy of this article is absolutely breathtaking.
If your concern is influence peddling, then look no further than the Vanguard. Whatever Linda Katehi might have done, she certainly didn’t use her position to help enrich her personal friends and political allies.
Linkletter: That’s probably true, but right now that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Greg:
I don’t think I would view it as a personal attack. I might view it as professional criticism though.
Why Nixon over Manson? I think Nixon is the relevant political lesson, rather than Manson. One of the lessons of Watergate is that the cover up is generally worse than the crime.
“It was the argument you implied when you said, “The standard of perjury is “the full truth” as that is the oath maintained.” You were talking about Katehi as if she were speaking under penalty of perjury.”
I can see how you arrived at that conclusion–it is reasonable considering how I constructed the argument. The point I was making is not that she committed perjury but that she failed to tell the truth from the start.
Again, I agree that Katehi does not owe me or the public the truth. However, we still judge her by her ability to come clean from the start and when she doesn’t, reasonable people are going to wonder what else she has failed to divulge and question the veracity of her denials.
Sadly, what you have done whether you know it or not, is reduce your credibility with your ad hominem attacks on this issue. Yudof is supporting her and now the members of the faculty. Other than Leland Yee where is the outcry form elected officials? Wolk’s lack of statement is a tacit endorsement. By making a mountain out of this mole hill you lose standing as a reasonable critic with regards to challenging other decisions that she will be making that are much more important.
“Greg: Just because I ran the op-ed written by the President of AFSCME doesn’t mean that reflects my views on the subject.”
The fact that you chose to feature that op-ed certainly implied that you endorsed the commentary, and it was very similar to what you have written about Katehi.
” ‘…either Dr. Katehi was complicit in this corruption … or she is a doe-eyed fool.
In either case, she is unfit….’
The language is clearly provocative here–intentionally so. Probably a bit more colorful that I would have written. But even this, doesn’t rise to the level of a personal attack.”
Of course that is a personal attack. I don’t know what else you would call it.
The whole tone of your commentary about Linda Katehi, from your first post (“stained with the blood”) has been overtly hostile.
[i]I agree that Katehi does not owe me or the public the truth.[/i]
No, let’s say this more carefully. She owes you or any specific person the truth, but not necessarily the full truth. She owes the public the full truth, but only through official inquiry.
Again, to get back to the answers that you’re demanding from Katehi: What you call “close to a smoking gun” is that Katehi asked about the status of a well-connected student, and said it was excellent that she got in. You don’t know that the student was unqualified, you don’t know that Katehi knew that the student was unqualified, and you don’t know that the admissions office was afraid of Katehi. You’re free to conjecture, as you did conjecture, that Katehi cheated the Illinois public, but that’s not just asking questions.
You’re also free to ask the Illinois Admissions Review Commission to look into it, and that would be a much better direction to go than the direction you have taken.
[i]One of the lessons of Watergate is that the cover up is generally worse than the crime.[/i]
Actually, that’s a pseudo-lesson of Watergate. There were plenty of real crimes to go around, but Nixon was pardoned to leave people thinking that the coverup was the worse than the crime. Should Nixon have announced in a press conference that he had personally ordered a break-in of the Brookings Institute? That would have been a catharsis, but no, people would not have shrugged and moved on.
Don:
I disagree. My general policy on here is to run guest pieces regardless of whether I agree or disagree. There are a lot of pieces that I have run that I either disagree with (see the pieces by Steve McMahon or Lamar and Souza on the Choice Voting) or don’t fully agree with.
Calling her unfit to serve over this is more than a little harsh.
At UCD there is not have a special list of politically connected students that are to be given special consideration. However, we do have an appeal process for those initially denied to give them a chance to make their case. I don’t think “my (insert family member) is the (insert political appointment or connection)” would sway the admissions staff into accepting the student. Unique hardship or circumstance or unique interests or skills would have more of an effect. This is the UCD culture. Chicago had a different one. I believe Katehi when she states that she was checking on the student’s enrollment status. People do this all the time at UCD. However, due to the culture of Chicago, Katehi’s interest may have had implications beyond mere gathering of information. I think she will find that UCD has a different culture and if she checks on the admission for an applicant, she will be given the status, nothing more.
I agree that there is a few brown noses around the campus with people jockeying for access. The academic world is weird in that way. The best thing about Vanderhoef was that he talked to and included everyone – students, staff, and faculty. He was visible around campus – eating at the coffee house, walking to work, etc. It will need to be seen if Katehi runs the University from an ivory tower surrounded by brown-nosing staff and faculty or really connects with and becomes part of the broader Davis community with its differing viewpoints and opinions.
This thread had become outrageous. What I get out of it is “Everyone knows there are shadow admissions systems all over, it is no big deal, just life”. Well excuse me, but I want better ethics, a more level playing field. Why not start with ousting Katehi, who obviously does not believe in fairness in any way, shape or form? And the attacks on DPD’s reporting and that of other media are nothing but “Kill the messenger” tactics, bc you don’t want to look at the message sitting right in front of you.
As I said before, stating the parents title, connections, and heritage are circumstantial evidence of favoritism – a wink, wink, nod, nod system. It is unfair, unethical, and antithetical to a Democratic system. I have not heard any of you say otherwise. About your only defense is “Oh well, it is just part of life”. What the hell kind of argument is that? Why accept hypocrisy, deceit, outright falsehoods, bc it is “just the way things are done”?
OK, I will ask my now infamous question: “If your child were denied admission to his/her school of choice, bc some other wealthy and connected parents’ less qualified child took your child’s place, what say you then? Shame on all of you for accepting less than what is morally right! Shame on you for accepting “wink, wink, nod, nod”! Shame, shame, shame!
When the going gets tough, the tough get going! Geeeeeeeeeeeeeze!
And by the way, think about this. The good ol’ boy system is perpetuated by the “wink, wink, nod, nod” system. The wealthy always get the better jobs, bc they have a diploma from the right schools. What we are doing, by allowing this shadow admissions system to continue, is dumbing down our college system, so that we are not getting the best qualified candidates. Our country is beginning to suffer from this, in not being able to muster enough technically qualified people in various areas of science. It is also how we get idiots in politics. Harvard is famous for the “wink, wink, nod, nod” system, which has produced political leaders like George Bush, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. And you wonder why this country is in trouble?
Who amongst you will defend Katehi’s ethical standards? Not even the faculty defending her are willing to to that.
I’m not defending the process I’m saying that it needs to be balanced by a system that advances under-represented groups as well. Demanding that one goes while the other is not rooted out perpetuates a greater inequality.
I think the person who wrote about the different culture here is on to something, that is, the one thing we should demand is that the new chancellor state that she understands that she is not in IL. anymore and that the admissions process is and will remain different here.
UC has always had a practice of “admissions by exception” (formerly called “special action admissions.” Controversy in the mid-1990’s, referenced on a link I posted on a prior thread, led to new policies. As I also linked. it seems that at least one school (UCLA’s school of orthodontics) violated that policy as recently as 2007.
The specific policy is that each Chancellor has a mandate to admit up to 6% of the enrolled (not admitted, but actually enrolled) freshman class separately from the normal admissions process. Up to 4% are to be for disadvantaged students. The other 2% are undefined, but to be within criteria established by UC policy. Those criteria are pretty broad.
With an incoming freshman class of around 5000, that equals about 200 ‘disadvantaged’ and about 100 ‘other’ special admissions potentially available to the UC Davis Chancellor each year. Due to high enrollment demand, the number of students admitted this way has not reached the 6% figure at UC Davis or systemwide. In fact, the number declined steadily in the data I could find.
The primary beneficiaries of admission-by-exception are athletes who don’t meet UC requirements, 250 – 300 each year who didn’t make the grade. Each of these student athletes presumably displaces a qualified student.
From an article in the Oakland Tribune in 2008:
“”Campuses do not want to be put in the awkward position of being seen as admitting an ineligible student over an eligible student,” said Mark Rashid, a UC Davis engineering professor who chairs the admissions committee of the UC system’s Academic Senate. “There’s an inherent tension in this business of targeting and recruiting students based on athletic ability.”
That tension translates into a quiet approach to the exception, he said. Few high school students and counselors know about the policy.
“It’s actually intentional that it’s so obscure,” Rashid said. “It’s extremely awkward to contemplate widely advertising admission by exception, so we don’t.”
The article continues: “The Davis and Riverside campuses, both of which compete in Division I, grant far more exceptions to nonathletes than athletes.”
Personally, I have some reservations about athletes getting special consideration, but that is another topic. Who are these nonathlete students admitted to UC Davis by special exception? Who handles these decisions at UC Davis? If a parent or relative inquires about the status of an applicant, what is done with the inquiry? Where is it routed? Is any of this information public?
Article cited:
[url]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20080414/ai_n25166844/?tag=content;col1[/url]
Clarification: “athletes who don’t meet UC requirements …. 250 – 300 each year” is system-wide, not at UC Davis.
David Greenwald: [i]There are a lot of pieces that I have run that I either disagree with (see the pieces by Steve McMahon or Lamar and Souza on the Choice Voting) or don’t fully agree with.[/i]
You deserve real credit for letting people post in the community blogs section and for occasionally running some of these guest pieces in the middle column of the site. More power to you for that.
However, you gave Harrison’s personal attack on Katehi special billing, not only by putting it in the middle column, but also by publishing it in the California Progress Report. Even then, you could have said, hey, you disagree with the ad hominem theme of Harrison’s editorial, but her position was nonetheless important.
What you actually said was that you didn’t see anyone attack Katehi personally.
If you want to say that Harrison’s editorial went overboard, that it’s her opinion and not yours and you just don’t agree with it, that would be very logical. I don’t think that it’s at all too late for you to clarify the point. I also won’t use an ungenerous phrase such as “better late than never”. You’re not under any deadline.
I also don’t think that you’ve done any serious damage; I don’t know that you “owe” Katehi much more than courtesies. But what is true is that your message is contradictory and Harrison’s piece is part of the problem.
Ryan Kelly: [i]This is the UCD culture. Chicago had a different one.[/i]
Not really. I know people at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and there is no real difference between the culture of that fine university and ours at UC Davis. The real story in this case is not some “culture”, it’s that Richard Herman, first as their provost and then as their chancellor, did things wrong.
The culture in Chicago isn’t really different from Sacramento either. There are plenty of cheaters in every state government.
Ryan Kelly: [i]I agree that there is a few brown noses around the campus with people jockeying for access.[/i]
I have met two of the faculty who signed that letter about Katehi. They are about the last people on campus who I would expect to “brown nose” anybody. They signed that letter because they thought that the Enterprise was being unreasonable, and because they don’t like the idea of destroying UC Davis in order to save it.
I personally don’t know if Katehi’s academic achievements are great or merely good. Otherwise I agree with the letter signed by my colleagues. And I don’t expect any “access” for anything.
Ryan Kelly: [i]The best thing about Vanderhoef was that he talked to and included everyone – students, staff, and faculty.[/i]
Talked to, often yes. Included, not really. For instance, the faculty voted 3 to 1 against Division I athletics. To that Vanderhoef said, thanks for your opinion, we’re moving forward.
Change: [i]The good ol’ boy system is perpetuated by the “wink, wink, nod, nod” system.[/i]
That’s not true; that’s not what happened in Illinois according to testimony to the Admissions Review Commission. There wasn’t any “wink, wink, nod, nod”. Starting in 2002, the admissions office would tell Herman, “we don’t want to admit this applicant”, and Herman would tell them, “do it anyway!” It was completely clear, and that clarity of wrong-doing is exactly what is missing from the e-mail so far to and from Katehi.
Huh: [i]Who amongst you will defend Katehi’s ethical standards?[/i]
I don’t see that there is anything to defend or criticize. It’s perfectly ordinary for the provost to ask about the status of an applicant, well-connected or otherwise. Or to celebrate an applicant’s admission. Again, if the Admissions Review Commission uncovers a smoking gun, that will be very interesting. Otherwise the whole thing is some outsiders blowing the smoke.
Greg: I’ve stated my position on Katehi here. I don’t believe Ms. Harrison made a personal attack on Katehi. I do believe that her view is further than I am willing to go at this point in time given the known facts.
ah! yes, ‘linkletter’ the culture sure is different here…for instance, if a student excells in any sport that UCD engages in, that student will be admitted regardless of academic qualifications,which tends to be the trend at all universities. I notice NOT ONE comment other than mine even mentions this.
So, all those who want better ethics, might start with sports. Unless, of course, this is just a hit piece on a female administrator.
BTW, her ‘ethic’ is probably about raising money, as much as anything else.
And Universities, along with other educational systems have taken a continuing hit over the last few years.
[i]I notice NOT ONE comment other than mine even mentions this.[/i]
Well, resident, if you want more acknowledgment, it would help if you didn’t post anonymously.
That said, I agree with you that there isn’t a clear line between fair and unfair exceptions in admissions. I wish that it were easier to draw a line, but the truth is that universities are under a lot of pressure from many directions to do many different things with admissions. One faction’s due is another faction’s betrayal. The admissions office is forced to play tricks by outside forces. Unfortunately, that invites dishonesty.
Athletic admissions are a case in point. If Berkeley didn’t have special admissions for football players, they would be 0 for 13 every year. They might get a few good players, but the team as a whole wouldn’t be able to compete. They would be thrown out of Division I and it would be a big scandal. On the other hand surviving in Division I chronically invites another kind of scandal: Either the graduation rate for football players is very low, or the players are let off the hook from academic requirements in one way or another.
[i]her ‘ethic’ is probably about raising money, as much as anything else.[/i]
In the current crisis, it’s hard to blame management for that! What if the legislature said this: “Here is an $800 million budget cut, and don’t you get distracted by fundraising.”
From the article cited above:
“At Berkeley and UCLA, however, athletes’ graduation rates fall short compared with their nonathlete classmates: by 13 percentage points at Berkeley and 21 percentage points at UCLA.”
Don: Your article doesn’t properly explain that Davis and Riverside are in Division I-AA, while Cal and UCLA are in Division I-A. These are very different animals. Division I-AA is expensive for universities. Division I-A is even more expensive, but it is also a big source of revenue. That revenue is what leads to crazy dealings, even though it does not make athletic departments profitable.
The graduate rate for this or that football team isn’t even half the story. First, the football players are steered to the easiest possible majors and the easiest possible courses. They can even have junk majors that are barely useful outside of the athletic department. Second, the players get luxury tutors, typically one-on-one tutors for every class. Third, at some universities, the tutors have been caught doing the players’ homework. The athletic department can require that the tutors be there with the students in regular classes; the students themselves might not show up. They can draft students into athletic department study halls to make sure that they put in their NCAA-required study hours. They view the regular classes as the “outside”.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/04/sports/ncaafootball/04ncaa.html[/url]
Greenwald, I hope one day you apply for a job, and legions of bloggers call for an investigation into your use of DPD as your handle, which dishonors the Davis Police. You can do your job just fine, but they will rehash every one of your motives, every one of your articles, every comment you made about what you did or did not write about, etc.
And it will be stupid of them, and shameful, but it will happen and you will ask why.
So surprise surprise. UC has the same type of program. Where is the outrage of those opposed to affirmative action about special admissions for the rich and connected. Ward Connerly, Bakke, Ricci, where are you when we need you?
Again, I ask the questions:
1) What if your child was denied acceptance to the college of his/her choice – bc some less qualified applicant was pushed to the head of the line, because of only superior athletic ability and no requisite academic qualifications, or because of family connections, personal wealth?
2) How did “apparent impropriety”, as admitted conduct of Katehi by faculty members supporting her, become acceptable conduct in a democratic society all of the sudden?
3) Since when was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth not necessary for university chancellors?
4) Why would anyone wish to perpetuate the good ol’ boy system in this country, so that the same wealthy connected families are the ones whose family members get the positions of power in the political and business arena?
The lack of ethics of some on this thread is frankly shameful. No wonder these unfair systems are still very much alive and well. No wonder people like Katehi get ahead, while the more honest languish in oblivion. I want a more level college admissions playing field for our country – in short I want much better. Tell me I am wrong in wanting that!