by Amani Rashid –
Sometimes it’s a good idea to monitor the actions of others, say convicts for example, and sometimes it’s just not necessary. So my question is: how essential is it for UC Davis to possess a “Student Activism Team” monitoring campus protests?
A Public Records Act request has recently revealed the existence of a secret group of UC Davis staff and administrators charged with the duty of monitoring campus protests. This discovery has left students outraged as they feel their First Amendment rights are being breached.
Team organizer Griselda Castro, assistant vice chancellor to Student Affairs, was quoted justifying the team’s secrecy with the argument that “members of the administration didn’t go public because the team’s protocol and name weren’t finalized yet.” However, this argument does leave one wondering, if protocol and name weren’t established yet why is it then that the team was present at protests all year?
“Although I can’t speak on behalf of the administration and the team, I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they mean well, their flaw resides in the fact that that they weren’t public with their existence from the get go. All excuses aside they messed that up!” A valid point made by Andrea Brooks, a fourth year animal science major.
Many students voiced similar opinions as they spoke of how they already don’t trust this team based solely on the fact that it was “in hiding”: “That’s some sketchy [stuff]!” exclaimed Ben Hernandez, a second year history major, with a look of disgust as he read a previous article written about the SAT.
After all, if you act like you have something to hide people will assume you do.
Another argument made against this team was this notion of the team “promoting student activism”. “I think it a tad contradictory that team, which in essence is, designed to contain student activism is trying to paint itself as an advocate for it. How stupid do they think we are?” This opinion was not unique to Monica Chen, a second year economics major.
Fred Wood, our vice chancellor for Student Affairs, told UC Davis Magazine last summer in the article, “Rebels with a Cause,” that our university expects students to express themselves on the issues of the day.
“We don’t consider student activism ‘bad,'” Wood said at the time. “In fact, we generally see it as good.”
Wrote Chacellor Katehi in March, “I am proud of our efforts to establish a team of university administrators that, in coordination with campus law enforcement, is focused on ensuring the safety and protection of our entire campus community during protests, demonstrations and emergencies. In all cases, we seek to ensure the safety of all involved, and to protect everyone’s constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly.”
“Our own concerns about safety grew after the March 4, 2010, demonstrations, when a crowd of about 300 students and their supporters threatened to march onto Interstate 80. We saw the potential for increased threats to life and property and, at that point, formalized our efforts into the Student Activism Team,” she continued.
In an online interview Cres Vellucci, a member of Sacramento County’s American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) board of directors, stated: “This bizarre explanation of the purpose of the “team” is a futile attempt to convince people that the administration is working for free speech rights, when, in fact, it is just the opposite.”
Some students are still rendered baffled as to why the discovery of this team could make one’s blood boil: “So I read about it and I’m not going to lie I’m just not getting how simple observance could lead to such an outcry”; stated Kyle Muner, a third year communications major.
One side to the debate as stated by Vellucci is; “if police, or administrators, wish to observe in a public fashion protests then that is their right. But it ought not to be done in a secret, undercover manner – that does them a disservice and teaches the wrong lesson to students.
Imagine if you read that the police, secretly, and through “agents” (administrators) infiltrated demonstrations and meetings in Egypt, or elsewhere in the Middle East. That would sound un-American, right? Well, the fact that it’s happening here and now is very scary.”
Although Vellucci raises a perspective worth considering, another take as stated by Amanda Rodriguez, first year chemistry major, is that the protestors are being, to a certain degree, irrational. “Not to say that the team has handled the situation swimmingly, and not to say that even I was taken aback when news of this secret team was released; but isn’t t the point of demonstrations and protests to have the administration watching you, and isn’t watching you ultimately what this team does?”
On a similar note Kyle Leung, a fourth year managerial economics major stated: “How shocked can one really be when their publicized plans and events are discovered by others. You can hardly call the team spies when all you have to do to know about a protest is find the flier posted on campus; it’s when they start sifting through your trash in search of private documents that you should to sound the fire alarm.
Another argument in favor of the team is that of safety: “I know none of the protests in recent years have gotten really violent and I’ve never felt threatened by a protest, but when fire alarms are being pulled left and right while class is in session I dare you to tell me that’s not a safety issue. I do think there has to be some kind of check to prevent incidents such as that, or worse.”
So, are we at a need for a team like this when society already possesses law enforcement officers to hold those who step out of bounds accountable? Is it fair to continue to group the police and this team into the same functional category, after all are they not each outlined a different sets of duties? Are students overacting or not reacting enough to the subsistence of this was-secret-until-it-got-its-shit-blown team?
Every student possesses their own answers to these questions. However, the one point most students seem to agree on is, whether the team is Captain America or the Big Bad Wolf the SAT should have been open and public from its advent. Had there been honesty and openness at the start this entire fiasco may have been smaller in scale or evaded all together.
Moral of story: Whether it’ll end good or bad honesty and communication really are the best policy, just ask the Student Activism Team.
If you are going to turn the screw on people and jack their tuition you need to be ready for their protests and keep an ear to the ground so you know what might ensue. A good question is if you were to fire everyone involved how much could you lower tuition. It didn’t seem like any of these people are involved in teaching or research. Maybe this explains why administration at UC Davis has grown so rapidly. But ultimately this is another consequence of the Republican stranglehold in Sacramento. Sadly its staff being turned against students.
Yesterday I was shopping and I heard a woman say to a clerk “What if I say no to all of these?’
I thought to myself, then the Republicans want you in the legislature.
I’ll bet that when Mr. Toad wakes up in the morning and walks to the kitchen and stubbs his toe he says “damn Republicans”.
I actually knew a guy like, every time he swore he invoked the Republicans.
That said, I’m more interested in the reaction to this piece, I think this is a bit scary personally.
Could be worse. Once upon a time Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover decided to infiltrate campuses with agents posing as students. Students packing heat, which was more unusual in those days, attracted attention from campus cops, who then either turned a blind eye or in some instances outed the agents. These guys were much scarier than any profs or admin types I’ve known.BTW Student newspapers printed names of alleged undercover agents, often with prosecutable results.
I would like to add my $.02 here.
I work for UC Davis and volunteered to be part of the Student Activism Team aka the Freedom of Expression Support Team. The team began forming last fall and I can assure you we are only there to support the students. We do not interfere nor try to disrupt any of their activities. We are a support team made up of volunteers that care deeply about our students and the right to free speech that we all embrace and cherish. Our team’s role is just to support and we don’t get involved unless a legal or safety issue comes up e.g. the students block traffic or plan to march onto the freeway. At the most recent protest, some of the students talked about taking over the student dorms. One of our volunteered mentioned the legal issue of them taking over a locked restricted access building and suggested they choose open access buildings instead. They agreed and by doing so the police did not have to get involved and no-one was arrested.
That is our goal. Assist the students and keep everyone safe.
And yes, we had every intention to make our group known to the campus once we had all of our group details finalized … including the name of our group! Some members like the name Student Activism Team while others like myself think that has a negative connotation and prefer Freedom of Expression Support group. Others think the latter name is too long and want something shorter. As you can see, the group is still evolving but our mission to support the students is the one thing that will not change.
Lastly, we do not hide our presence. We have been very open with students who asked why we were there and the few that I have spoken with seemed perfectly fine with that. They also liked the idea that we were listening to what they were saying e.g. tuition increases making public education no longer affordable to them or their siblings. And in most cases we were in total agreement with them.
Two questions before commenting.
1) what are the financial costs of this organization to the students and to the taxpayers ? If no cost, namely all volunteer then I think the secrecy was ill-advised but probably not worth pursuing further since they are now out in the open. If this has a cost to the student, then I would find it an egregious breech of good faith to charge students more to pay for a secret organization duplicating the role already filled by campus and if necessary community law enforcement.
2) I am curious about the phrase ” proving presence at student actions and rallies”. Can someone explain to me how this function would
Increase safety ? This seems to promote “list keeping” which can become a very pernicious activity as witnessed historically by the McCarthy
Communist hunts and the Nixon enemy lists.
I am very curious about the financing, goals and scope of this group.
I think it is absolutely out of bounds. If the University wants to show its interest in heading off potential violence, all they need to do is be there with that one stated purpose. Wear your regular staff badge and say you want to make sure nobody is hijacking the protest and taking it in a violent direction. Give the students credit for some intelligence. After all, they’re UC students. If staff show up for that reason and that reason alone, most of the protesters will accept their presence and some will welcome them and the opportunity to engage them in dialogue around the issues. Secrecy implies lack of trust and a hidden agenda. That approach is guaranteed to create more problems, not fewer.
JeffAustin
It appears that we crossed posts and you did address some of my concerns.
I am still interested to learn if the organization is all volunteer.
Also can you clarify the phrase ” proving presence at student actions and rallies” ? This sounds more like a list keeping than safety function,but perhaps I am misunderstanding.
Bottom line – who is in the wrong here?
1) The SAT group is perfectly legal;
2) Students marching onto an interstate freeway to protest is NOT LEGAL.
The students brought this on themselves w their illegal actions that endangered the safety of others. If they don’t want reactions like the formation of a group such as SAT, then they need to keep their protests within reasonable bounds.
In my college days, I was on campus during the View Nam War protests. We had the Nat’l Guard w guns on campus bc of student rioting – student rioting that led to traffic being blocked, and cars overturned and set on fire. I guarantee the SAT group on campus is a lot less scarier than the Nat’l Guard w weapons. Students who protested during the Viet Nam War later found they were not hired if the job required a security clearance. There are real life consequences for any actions taken during a protest. Like it or not, welcome to the real world…
To put it bluntly, if you are not willing to take the heat, then stay out of the kitchen…
medwoman,
Thank you for your comments. I hope I can answer your questions.
1. Yes, the organization is all volunteer. If we attend rallies/protests/events during working hours then we are expected to make up the time and/or work. And we also attend outside of our normal working hours, on our own time, as these events sometimes go late into the evening. Thus, there is no impact to tax payers by our participating. We are there because we want to be and because we believe we are making a positive contribution.
2. There is no list taking. Some of the volunteers may know a few of the students but overall I think it is an honest statement to say that the students are remaining anonymous and no one is keeping tabs on who is there and what his/her views are. Again, there is absolutely no list taking. We support free speech and are not doing anything to hinder that.
On a personal note, I have been very impressed with how the students on our campus have conducted themselves at the events I have attended. They have every right to be upset over the budget situation, I am too, and I applaud them for voicing their concerns.
I am also 100% behind our team. There is no hidden agenda or ulterior motive. I have been with the team since its inception last fall and in every meeting the goal has clearly been to identify “what can we do to support the students in expressing their views”.
I hope this has answered your question. Thanks for posting them, this is a great forum.
jeff
EMR
Yes, I also remember that era well. And yes, there are real life consequences for actions and over reactions. I remember particularly Kent State where students were killed by other young, poorly supervised and doubtless scared youths who were there ostensibly to protect them.
At least one of these deaths was a young woman not even at the protest but whose sole crime was being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
While one could interpret this as an argument in favor of this group, I still see a need for at least transparency prior to initiating operations.
And I still would put forward my question about whether there is a tab, and if so, who is footing the bill in this time of dramatic educational cutbacks?
To medwoman: I think what Jeff is saying, as a member of this group, is that there is no cost – it is all volunteer.
To JeffAustin: I agree w you that students have every right to be upset about tuition hikes and other such matters. But addressing such issues by attempting to go onto I-80 to stop traffic is foolish/dangerous/counterproductive. Students have to learn that in the real world you cannot just do what you want to do bc your cause is somehow “just”. In other words, the end doesn’t justify the means…
Jeff,
Got it. Concerns addressed. As represented on this post, your group would have my full support and appreciation.
As I continue to learn as a relatively low level administrator, and am sure you are also aware, transparency of action and intent prior to action will frequently lead to smoother operations with less questioning and objections.
I wish your group, and the students all the best going forward in challenging times.
I take issue with the claim that these protests are non-violent. While they are not violent in the sense that a riot is violent, it is a stretch to say these protests are peaceable either. I was a student at UC Davis, and I remember watching students banging on doors and windows. One of the buildings had to be locked down and closed as a result. How would anyone on this blog feel if a large group of people showed up at your house and started banging on your windows and door? wouldn’t that feel intimidating?
I also remember being a member of the Davis College Republicans, and during one of the protests, la raza singled out one of our members and encircled them shouting at her. That is pretty intimidating also, and can be interpreted as a veiled threat.
And the stunt they tried to pull on I-80 had the potential to kill themselves and motorists, which certainly would not have been non-violent.
In short, the protestors brought this on themselves.
Jeff: “There is no list taking.”
then maybe there needs to be.
The only problem I have with this group is that it allowed itself to be found out.
MedWoman: And I still would put forward my question about whether there is a tab, and if so, who is footing the bill in this time of dramatic educational cutbacks?
with all the crap UC Davis wastes money on? Give me a bleeping break. If you have visited UC Davis in recent years, they just finished renovating the coffee house and apparently have enough operating expenses for that, (which if you have been in there, and compare it to what it was, must have cost a pretty penny) and apparently have the operating expenses for mondavi wine institute, a brand new “wellness center”, and there is almost non-stop construction of brand new facilities. Then there is the brand new music hall (yes, even after they had just built the mondavi center ostensibly for that purpose)
So I think to spare a few bucks for campus safety shouldn’t seem like a big deal.
EMR
Listing a host of other projects that aren’t the best use of funds would not justify yet another. Having said that, I completely favor and support the all volunteer group as Jeff described it.
While I am not completely sold on this activity, and I question its appropriateness, I am relieved that someone like Jeff Austin would be involved with it. That is reassuring.
Elaine: There are lot of things that are legal that I deem immoral, and I believe you would agree with that as a principle even if you and I may not agree on the list.
David: It scares me when I see you advocating for list taking.
Elaine:
If you are advocating list keeping, some questions:
1) What qualifies a person to be put on the list ? Do you have to break a law or threaten to break one?
Do you have to intimidate someone as in your examples?
Or is your mere presence at the event or in the vicinity enough to qualify?
2) Who gets to decide who goes on the list?
3) Who gets to maintain the lists ?
4) Who gets to decide to what current and future use these lists can be put ?
Jeff: “There is no list taking.”
Musser: then maybe there needs to be.
How utterly ridiculous such an action would be, if taken.
Musser,
“I also remember being a member of the Davis College Republicans, and during one of the protests, la raza singled out one of our members and encircled them shouting at her.”
If you were to provide some context, it may add to your anecdote re: protests are not really all that “non-violent.”
“So I think to spare a few bucks for campus safety shouldn’t seem like a big deal.”
Does the university pull all this money from one general fund or do grants and donations to be allotted for specific purposes fund the things you mentioned?
In other words, did they have an opportunity to spend the money on campus security, yet opted to use it to fund that music hall? Is that how it works?
ERM,
“Students have to learn that in the real world you cannot just do what you want to do bc your cause is somehow “just”.
Tell that to the Tea Party…but seriously, what makes you think students are completely unaware of this “real world” you so often speak of and how it operates?
“In other words, the end doesn’t justify the means…”
From the likes of whom, one who has her finger on the pulse of the modern “youth?” You know what their ultimate objective was? If the goal was publicity then…
DMG: David: It scares me when I see you advocating for list taking.
yes, I know. but I don’t think it is reasonable for ring leaders to push other students to engage in illegal conduct (I-80) incident and then hide behind the cloak of anonymity.
SM in response to: ERM’s comment – “Students have to learn that in the real world you cannot just do what you want to do bc your cause is somehow “just”….
…wrote [quote]Tell that to the Tea Party…[/quote]?
Are you able to provide support? Can you articulate specific, verifiable, credible conduct attributable to the TP?
Ad,
Welcome back. I’m not sure how you interpreted my comment. I was joking as to how republican party has been influenced by the Tea Party folks/others to the right and re: ends justifying the means (ie shutting down many govt. enities/functions) all because they (Tea Party/far right and those influenced by them) believe their cause is righteous, despite the fact that many would suffer if that were to occur.
Planned Parenthood’s business is “well over” 90% abortion services…a complete lie/inaccurate statement spoke by Sen. Kyl on the Senate Floor, wonder what prompted him to say that? Oh, that’s right, it doesn’t matter because “his remark was not intended to be a factual statement…”
Superfluous Man: “Does the university pull all this money from one general fund or do grants and donations to be allotted for specific purposes fund the things you mentioned?”
what do you think? The buildings must be maintained, manned, operated. water and sewer lines, the works. In other words, tHere are all kinds of expenses on that far beyond the original construction costs. do you really believe grants alone pay for all that?
To medwoman: E Roberts Musser (Elaine) is not the same person as Musser
SM: “…what makes you think students are completely unaware of this “real world” you so often speak of and how it operates?”
If students fully understood that to go out onto I-80 was an incredibly stupid, illegal, and unjustifiable act, they would not have even contemplated it. What if some motorist or student had ended up dead?
ERM: “In other words, the end doesn’t justify the means…”
SM: “From the likes of whom, one who has her finger on the pulse of the modern “youth?” You know what their ultimate objective was? If the goal was publicity then…”
Then what? If their goal was publicity, and someone had ended up dead, it would not have justified the means, which was to disrupt traffic.
Musser,
“what do you think? The buildings must be maintained, manned, operated. water and sewer lines, the works. In other words, tHere are all kinds of expenses on that far beyond the original construction costs. do you really believe grants alone pay for all that?”
I have no clue, to be honest, which is why I asked. Regardless, your original comment specifically addressed the ongoing construction and (re)development of existing facilities on the UCD campus, from which you based your assertion: “So I think to spare a few bucks for campus safety shouldn’t seem like a big deal.”
My point was simply that the costs associated with those things you mention may not have been allotted to campus security depending on the funding source. Your point seems to presume that the money could be spent on something other than what it was, which you apparently don’t know to be the case. My point is that they may not have had the option to use the monies for those projects on other endeavors/projects.
ERM,
“If students fully understood that to go out onto I-80 was an incredibly stupid, illegal, and unjustifiable act, they would not have even contemplated it. What if some motorist or student had ended up dead?”
Is it at all possible that they, or at least those involved in its organization, anticipated that they would not make it onto I-80 as the proper authorities would take the necessary measures to prevent it? Maybe I have not followed this story as closely as you have, but did any of the organizers really think they were going to overpower LE and make it onto 80?
“Then what? If their goal was publicity, and someone had ended up dead, it would not have justified the means, which was to disrupt traffic.”
If they knew that they would not make it onto 80, yet still clash with the authorities, thereby receiving the predictable news coverage of the incident then there you go. No one dies due to the 80 stoppage if it never happens; yet that which led up to LE preventing their taking over 80 still receives ample coverage, as does the message behind the protests/march.
To SM: And how in heaven’s name do you know if the kids figured authorities would somehow stop them before they ever reached I-80? Since when do students all have the same thoughts in their heads? Let’s assume they all did figure that (which is a ridiculous assumption). Then I guess they all could figure they were going to get arrested and charged, right? Then why all the shock when they actually did get arrested and charged? LOL
Nevertheless, attempting to commit an illegal act, knowing you are going to be stopped by authorities, is not justified either. It invites confrontation, and to incite that sort of confrontation, which could result in someone getting hurt, is not nor never will be justified.
Elaine
First my apology. I know that you and Musser are not the same person. just sloppiness on my part.
I do want to take exception to your assertion that ” Attempting to commit an illegal act ….is not nor ever will be justified”. While I am in no way equating the recent student protests with the following examples, I do want to point out that those pesky lines to which we have both alluded in the past tend to muddy the waters. I think that most of us in this country believe that the clearly illegal acts of the original Tea Party participants while directly confrontational and likely to result in harm, were not only warranted by circumstances, but many of us believe them to be heroes. Rosa Parks was clearly breaking a law, which a large number of us also believe to be justified and honorable although clearly confrontational. Ghandi, likewise.
It’s always surprising to me that no one comments on the veracity of the original article. Like pretty all the ‘news’ in this blog, it’s histrionic, meant to stir things up rather than to uncover any real news.
And it works – look at the time it took to straighten out the communication between medwoman and jeffaustin. A more balanced article might have actually interviewed some folks on the committee. This blog often operates with “we are a balanced news group” all the while taking a very clear [u]editorialized [/u] position on most things. The main aim seems mostly to persuade or stir up, hardly every to inform on the complexities.