It has now been over a month since the initial pepper-spraying incident that caught the attention of the region, the state, the nation and even the world. In the aftermath of that event, the Vanguard joined many others in calling for the chancellor to resign.
The reason we argued that the chancellor should resign is that (A) we believe the police acted wrongly on that day in November in violation of the university’s and UC’s use of force protocol and also, according to case law, we believe they acted in violation of the 4th Amendment, (B) the chancellor was too busy attending to other matters to address a critical precursor to the pepper-spraying event, and (C) in the aftermath of pepper spraying, the chancellor appeared to have first backed police action and then slowly changed her view – eventually both taking responsibility and shirking from it.
However, we now revisit our view, taking into account current dynamics and most recent information.
This past weekend, Nathan Brown, who has now become an outspoken critic of the university as well as an English Professor, wrote an op-ed which reviews the case for the chancellor’s resignation, after having written an open letter demanding that resignation immediately following the November 18 event.
He argues, “It is no small thing for the majority of the faculty in two of the largest and most important departments in the sciences and humanities, physics and English, to call for the resignation of a university chancellor.”
Professor Brown adds: “It is even more significant when this call is joined by other departments and by more than 100,000 people, including thousands of UCD students, faculty, staff and alumni, as well as residents of the city of Davis.”
He then examines some facts involved in her decision and argues, “Despite the chancellor’s efforts to sow ambiguity concerning her orders to police, these calls for her resignation are ultimately grounded in an irrefutable fact: One week after the chancellor of UC Berkeley ordered riot police to remove an encampment on that campus, and one week after student and faculty demonstrators were brutally beaten by those police, Chancellor Katehi made the same decision in the same circumstances at UC Davis. She also ordered riot police to remove an encampment, and the same result, followed: police violence against students.”
Professor Brown argues that this decision is not merely a mistake or oversight, but the repetition and, indeed, continuation of polices that failed elsewhere in the University of California, just over a week previously.
He argues, “The chancellor already had ample opportunity to learn the lesson of what happened at Berkeley, she either failed or refused to do so.”
Professor Brown then notes that she took “full responsibility” for the events of Nov. 18. He then agrees with her and argues resignation ought to be her acceptance of the consequences.
Toward that end, “Since Nov. 18, the inconsistency of the chancellor’s response to calls for her resignation has not alleviated but rather exacerbated her failure of leadership. On the one hand, she has accepted full responsibility; on the other, she has attempted to displace blame onto the vice chancellor and the police.”
He notes that the investigations that have been underway “are riddled with conflicts of interest that belie their supposed independence and objectivity.” Thus, they only provide cover by allowing “the chancellor to respond to direct questions concerning her decisions on Nov. 18 by saying she is no longer at liberty to speak about the matter.”
He adds to this point, noting that the chancellor has formed an advisory board with the CEOs of large multinational corporations. “In the midst of international condemnation concerning the suppression of free speech and political dissent through police violence on our campus, Chancellor Katehi has chosen to surround herself with university administrators who have also used riot police to quell student protest and who have resigned amid scandals concerning the inappropriate use of administrative power. She has chosen to surround herself with the CEOs of corporations tied to war profiteering and environmental catastrophes.”
He argues: “While the chancellor now pretends to support the efforts of students and faculty to defend the public mission of the UC system, the composition of her new Advisory Board exemplifies a different vision: a future in which the shared governance of the university is replaced by ties to corporate interests that hasten, rather than struggle against, the privatization of the UC system.”
Professor Brown concludes his case, arguing, “What these developments since Nov. 18 confirm is what many students and faculty already realized then: that the chancellor’s decision to deploy riot police against students demonstrating in defense of public education was no ‘mistake’ and had nothing to do with the ‘health and safety’ of the campus community.”
He adds, “Rather, it was the political content of the students’ protest that had to be suppressed due to the chancellor’s own political commitment and her own vision for the future of UC Davis: a commitment to the privatization of a great public university and a vision in which the interests of corporations and administrators take precedence over those of students.”
“Those of us calling for the chancellor’s resignation do not share that vision. There are many of us, and that is encouraging. For the good of the university, we continue to insist that the chancellor needs to step down,” writes Professor Brown.
While I do not disagree with what Professor Nathan Brown writes here or with his concerns over the future direction of the university, at the same time he seems to conflate issues. Is this call for resignation a call for her to step down over the mishandling of the pepper-spraying incident and its aftermath? Or is it more general discontent over the future of the university?
There is little doubt that Professor Brown and many of his supporters would argue that there is no distinction between the two, that they go together, part and parcel. However, I believe he makes a grave error connecting the two.
There are those who, for a variety of reasons, believe we ought to wait to decide the fate of Ms. Katehi.
UC Davis Law School Dean Kevin Johnson argues, “We must not be hurried into possibly ill-advised judgments.”
He believes that “immediate actions to ensure student safety have been taken.” Now, he argues for basic principles of due process and fairness.
He writes, “These investigations will proceed with the fundamental constitutional acknowledgment that students enjoy a robust right to free expression and peaceful protest – part of the proud history of the University of California. The students are demonstrating against drastic fee increases caused by the state’s budget crisis and a general – and accelerating – defunding of public education by the state of California. We all should applaud the students’ passion for ensuring that public education remains accessible to students from all walks of life.”
He then notes, “The university, of course, bears the responsibility of keeping students safe as they exercise their rights. University policy bars the placement of tents and other structures on the campus to protect students from violence, sexual assaults and sanitation issues, such as those that plague Occupy camps across the country.”
Dean Johnson was one of several to be principle signers of Walter Leal’s letter in support of Chancellor Katehi: “We strongly believe that Linda Katehi is well-qualified to lead our university through this difficult healing process and oppose the premature calls for her resignation; this is not in the best interest of our university,” wrote the distinguished entomology professor.
At the same time, the letter indicates, “We are appalled by the events of Friday, Nov. 18, on the Quad, but heartened by the chancellor’s apology and her commitment to listen to and work on the students’ concerns.”
The view of Kevin Johnson can be seen as quite reasonable: “I believe that the investigations should be allowed to run their courses before further action is taken.”
He concludes, “Ultimately, we should allow the investigations of the pepper-spraying incident to run their courses. Only then can we, as a community, decide what changes and actions are needed. Due process of law and the integrity of our university require no less.”
But it comes with some risks. The first risk is that if the immediate pressure and energy subsides, the chancellor can survive even if she mishandled this event.
Second, there are those who question the sincerity of William Bratton and the large multinational Kroll corporation he works for.
Was Mr. Bratton, the former LA Police Chief, brought in to find the truth or to clean up the mess? There is a risk there. President Yudof was very clever bringing in a man of Cruz Reynoso’s clout, even if many of the Occupy students have no idea who he is or what his legacy has brought.
But if Justice Reynoso is never presented with a real investigation with real findings, we have a problem.
The DA’s Office and Sheriff’s Department were asked to investigate criminal elements of this matter. They made a wise decision to acknowledge their own conflicted roles in all of this and push the matter to the Attorney General’s Office.
We have nothing but disappointment from learning that the AG’s Office has punted on this matter.
The bottom line is that, while we are inclined at this point to allow the investigation to go forward and bring forth results – we are skeptical that this will reveal much, and believe that they will hang this debacle on the lowest possible elements of the chain of command and hope for the best.
The one wild card in this is going to be whether the investors and donors in the university are moved by any of this. If Chancellor Katehi is seen as damaged goods, that could form the impetus to remove her.
But there is also a cautionary tale involved here, and it goes back to the comments of Nathan Brown. While I believe his argument is misplaced, I do not believe he is wrong.
The problem is that the people who named Linda Katehi are the same people who will name her replacement. Ultimately, I believe that Ms. Katehi is not the one to blame for the underlying problems, but rather the UC System, the President, the Board of Regents and even our legislature.
I do not have a good answer to any of this, but in the end, I suspect that Linda Katehi is less the kingmaker in this and more the court jester, playing the predictable, even comedic, part in this larger tragedy that has befallen higher education in this state and this nation.
At this point, I see no reason why Linda Katehi should remain on as chancellor, but I await the results of the inquiry to show if I err in this view.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Thanks for re-stating the patently obvious: [i]I do not have a good answer to any of this[/i]. No one does at this point.
I really don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with me, even in negative and condescending ways, but for some reason those kind of comments grate on me. It seems to make sense to revisit the issue a few weeks later, evaluate various opinions, and recast my own. We’ll see what happens, I’m skeptical that this is going to resolve itself cleanly.
$10,000,000 for a new art museum. If she continues to bring in this kind of money she is likely to survive even though her tenure will probably never recover. Will someone lower get fired? I doubt Meyer will go because of West Village although his portfolio will be changed. This leaves the cops to take the fall for gleefully executing the policies of the elite of California.
“This leaves the cops to take the fall for gleefully executing the policies of the elite of California.”
Oooooh, the big conspiracy. LOL
[quote]”While I do not disagree with what Professor Nathan Brown writes here and his concerns over the future direction of the university, at the same time he seems to conflate issues here. Is this call for resignation a call for her to step down over the mishandling of the pepper spraying incident and its aftermath? Or is it more general discontent over the future of the university.”[/quote]It’s quite clear by simply looking at Nathan Brown’s past writings and perusing his blog. He’s obviously [u]not[/u] the mild-mannered college instructor portrayed here (the man “who has now become an outspoken critic of the university as well as an English Professor….”).
This is at least the third time the [u]Vanguard[/u] has re-run Brown’s incendiary blabberings without taking the time to find out that he’s the closest thing to a bomb-throwing anarchist to show up on the UCD payroll in recent years. He’s got a long history demanding that we toss out all “authorities” from our universities, leaving the schools to his ilk and the students.
There is no question about whether his resignation demands evolve from the pepper-spray incident or “general discontent”–why do you even pose the question? He immediately demanded Katehi’s resignation. (Of course, you were right there too.)
So, in short, the obvious answer to your “question” is that Brown is an opportunist in the pepper-spray incident, using it as just another way of stirring up discontent with university authorities.
JustSaying, well said and I agree with everything you stated. In my opinion we don’t need professors like that on campus teaching our kids.
I think PepperSprayGate has been milked sufficiently for all its juice supporting anti-law enforcement activism. And, if the Occupy crowd is going to extract the maximum benefit from the media-fired manufactured moral outrage of the event, the debate should focus on their motivations for protesting and breaking the law in the first place. Should the chancellor step down because of this incident? I don’t know. One could argue that the attention by the national media has been free advertising for the university. I might be good to follow up with some controlled market studies of high school seniors as to their opinion of UCD before and after PepperSprayGate.
The decision for Katehi being replaced should come down to her performance, and projected performance, for achieving the goals of the university based on its mission. I question whether she is the right type of leader for these challenging and difficult times of shattered budgets. I also question whether her reputation, and hence her capability to lead, has been too damaged from the media circus surrounding PepperSprayGate.
I think UCD, and frankly many colleges across the country, are facing a need to completely reinvent their business model. This is going to be like pulling teeth for an industry steeped in tweedy tradition. However, it is clear that the decades of price inflation for a college education has reached a crucible. It is a new bubble about ready to pop. The return on investment for a $150,000 undergraduate degree is just not there. This is what is driving the campus protests… cost inflation without commensurate job opportunities. The job opportunities are not likely to catch up given the massive economic correction from all the fake housing bubble economic growth. Also, we are experiencing a global wage leveling with emerging economies. But UCD brass is doing nothing to address this growing problem of too high education costs in a changed economic picture. This more than anything else is the reasons students should be demanding the chancellor resign.
[quote]In my opinion we don’t need professors like that on campus teaching our kids. [/quote]I respectfully disagree… we, as a society, need people like Mr Brown to teach our future leaders that there are demagogues and liars in the world, purporting to have knowledge/wisdom, so the students will learn to use their own Knowles and judgment to come to conclusions… I learned so much over the years by having idiots spew their venom, allowing me to recognize it as such.
had a spell-check malfunction… Not ‘Knowles’, but ‘knowledge’… my bad…
Tahir Square…. UCD campuses. A difference in the degree of brutality but
otherwise,predictably, the same response to populist challenge to
entrenched power.
I see that many of the commenters on this website are resorting to unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks against Professor Brown in order to justify their own implied or stated position—that the police and other authority figures can do no wrong.
Let’s recap the pepper spray incident: students protesting the UC administration’s agenda of privatization and police brutality at UC Berkeley are brutalized by cops sent by a UC chancellor to suppress their protest.
To understand the events otherwise requires some incredible perversions of truth and logic, as well as distasteful victim blaming.
Professor Brown is not the only one calling for Katehi’s resignation, nor is he the only one calling for the removal of police from our campuses. But he is a convenient figurehead for the media (because he’s vocal) and for police apologists (because a google search reveals that his course readings include Marx—the horror!).
In the future, please dispense with the distracting commentary about Brown’s supposed anarchism and Katehi’s supposed fitness for the job and get straight to the heart of the matter. Here’s a sample template:
“I support [pepper spray / police brutality / militarized campus cops] because those students are [dirty hippies / commies / spoiled brats] and they’re lucky those cops showed restraint by not [breaking bones / killing them / throwing them all in jail for a month].”
hpierce: [i]”I learned so much over the years by having idiots spew their venom, allowing me to recognize it as such.”[/i]
I think you are the exception.
Kids at this age are still very impressionable and generally have not yet formed any solid view of the world before they attend college. I have spent plenty of time helping some of these young minds unwind from the brainwashing they have received from the likes of Professor Brown.
I think people like Professor Brown should not be allowed to teach unless he is, in fact, made to be clear and transparent in his beliefs and is compelled to allow challenges to these beliefs in his classes. He is a purveyor of extreme left ideology and I have the same opinion of anyone spewing extreme right ideology. If you wanted to create armies of ideologues to help you advance your political agenda, the colleges are the perfect venue.
“Kids at this age are still very impressionable and generally have not yet formed any solid view of the world before they attend college. I have spent plenty of time helping some of these young minds unwind from the brainwashing they have received from the likes of Professor Brown.”
Screw college, we’ll just send everyone to learn at the feet of Jeff Boone, purveyor of the blank slate theory of impressionable young minds.
crank: I think I like you!
[i]”This past weekend, [b]Nathan Brown,[/b] who has now become an outspoken critic of the university as well as an English Professor, wrote an op-ed which reviews the case for the chancellor’s resignation, after having written an open letter demanding that resignation immediately following the November 18 event.”[/i]
I think there is no good reason to listen to Nathan Brown. It’s not as if he is some very experienced or highly regarded academic. He just completed his PhD in 2008 and he has done nothing of note yet in his academic career.
Further, it’s not as if Nathan Brown’s political views are mainstream. He is extreme as it gets. Brown has the right to be a marxist. He has the right to advocate for government control and domination of all business. Universities are better off having a diversity of opinions, and his, on the extreme-far-out-left is important to the debate. (UCD would never allow anyone as far right to speak out as Brown is far left.) But just because Brown talks a lot does not mean Brown represents the mainstream of academia or UCD professors or even the left-wingers who make up the English Department. (Brown is wrongly in that department. He belongs in a political philosophy program. Stupidly, English Dept’s put people like Brown in their departments under some bass-ackwards theory of “critical thinking,” when all those “critical thinkers” are communists who only care about their misguided poltical and economic theories.)
crank, you’re such a grouch. Your template doesn’t fit for much of what’s being discussed here. I don’t yet know whether Katehi’s actions warrant firing. I do know I don’t want a repeat of the pepper-spray incident. How about waiting to see what we find out from these reviews?
I have no such doubts about judging Prof. Brown from his own actions following the event and from his own writings: http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/
I’m concerned that the investigations already are being discredited by Brown and others, including David. So, you know the results will be totally unsatisfactory to these folks. What an insult this approach is to Justice Reynoso and the others deserve respect for taking on this thankless job! Oh, the unintended disrespect….
Rifkin, I like you, but you’re such a grouch. Happy Holidays to you all.
“He’s got a long history demanding that we toss out all “authorities” from our universities, leaving the schools to his ilk and the students.”
This may stun you, but I don’t really have a problem with that. I think it’s pretty clear what Nathan Brown is. There are advantages and disadvantages to him.
“I think there is no good reason to listen to Nathan Brown. “
I think there are lots of good reasons to listen to Nathan Brown – he’s both intelligent and perceptive. There are reasons not to, but I think you are sizing the guy up short if you simply ignore him.
“I support [pepper spray / police brutality / militarized campus cops] because those students are [dirty hippies / commies / spoiled brats] and they’re lucky those cops showed restraint by not [breaking bones / killing them / throwing them all in jail for a month].”
I think Crank is probably closer to being correct than some would like to admit.
Some of you seem to be under the impression that the Bicycle Barricade blog is written by Professor Nathan Brown. It is not. The blog is run by a group of current and former UCD students, including myself. The only thing on that blog written by Nathan Brown is his open letter to Katehi. So much for not jumping to conclusions. And you might be grouchy, too, if you’d seen cops pepper spray your friends in the face.
It’s obvious the UCD police chief and Lt. Pike should be fired, and
especially so in light of the fact that at least one other UCD police
officer made repeated written complaints about Pike’s aggressive behaviors prior to the pepper spray incident.
Investigation to look into other aspects of campus law enforcement is a
good idea.
“What an insult this approach is to Justice Reynoso and the others deserve respect for taking on this thankless job!”
I talked to Justice Reynoso about this very problem that he and his crew could have the best intentions in the world and because they are only reviewing the investigation, they may have nothing to work with. Fortunately, I think if Cruz things that, he’s going to raise all hell in his own way. But that’s a real problem that he acknowledges.
From the Washington Post…
[quote]Computer hackers are avenging the Occupy movement by exposing the personal information of police officers who evicted protesters and threatening family-values advocates who led a boycott of an American Muslim television show.
In three Internet postings last week, hackers from the loose online coalition called Anonymous published the email and physical addresses, phone numbers and, in some cases, salary details of thousands of law enforcement officers all over the country.
The hackers said they were retaliating for police violence during evictions of Occupy protest camps in cities around the country, but law enforcement advocates slammed the disclosures as dangerous.[/quote]
The Occupy Movement: Continuing their good work getting Republicans elected in 2012!
to the extent it matters, my opinion is as follows:
Pepper spray use, in this incident, was a gross and disportionate use of force. All should be apalled that it happened.
UCD and the community as a whole, should resolve that this should not recur.
An investigation is proceeding, and should be allowed to play itself out.
If disciplinary measures turn out to be appropriate, they should be instituted.
I believe that those who either used bad judgment, or who could have used better judgment, are likely to avoid the outcomes in the future, perhaps better than someone brought in “cold” to replace them.
We need to work for what is right and just, and avoid retribution/revenge just for the sake of “payback”. We should learn.
I agree with hpierce.