I note another Op-Ed, written this time by entomology professors Walter Leal and James Carey. Their central argument that the faculty should speak for themselves and that we ought to “abide by the vote of the majority regardless of the outcome” is fine, though it comes across really as too much inside baseball, embodying some internal battle for the university.Survive a week after a huge crisis, and you have a great chance of surviving the crisis all together. The most likely time that someone resigns is during the heat of a crisis – a fact that should be considered thoroughly when criticizing that heads must roll in any crisis. If the head doesn’t roll fairly quickly, there are good reasons to believe the head will never roll.
I still believe that heads will roll in this because they almost have to. The rule of thumb is that, while responsibility should flow from the top down, blame moves from the bottom up. Those at the bottom are most likely to take the blame for any transgression and that means that Lt. John Pike is gone. The only question is whether the police chief and chancellor go with him.
As I have said before, I think the chances of the chancellor going at this point are quite remote, and it would take a lot of findings to get there.
The first key finding is that the use of force was unlawful. I know people will disagree on this point, but this one is close to a slam dunk. Are the protesters blameless? No. Could they have avoided the pepper spraying? Certainly. But at the end of the day, they are rank amateurs.
You have to hold people in authority and people with specific training and expertise to a higher level than the average person. Whether you look honestly at the use of chemical agents protocols or case law on the use of force, you can’t find justification for pepper spraying here.
Even if you want to interpret chants from the protesters as actual threats – and I think that’s very questionable – you still have a good deal of time removed from those chants to show they were not imminent and credible threats, you have the actions of the protesters sitting on the ground, and you have the fact that Lt. Pike very calmly and casually walked through the protesters to bathe them in spray.
No investigation is going to vindicate the use of pepper spray here. That gets Lt. Pike, and it probably gets Chief Spicuzza as well, if it can be shown that she was involved in the decision to use pepper spray, and I just cannot believe that a lieutenant is going to escalate the use of force on protesters without clearing it with his bosses.
The question is how Chancellor Katehi would have to go down on this. And that is where I think she ends up surviving. You would have to show either that she ordered the use of force or did not stop its use when she knew it would be used.
She gave the order to clear the area, but has denied ordering the use of force. So, unless there is a written communication that pops up to the contrary – unlikely that she would have been that foolish – or someone claims that she gave the order – I think it will be hard to prove she gave the command.
That sets up a much more subjective and difficult charge to sustain – basically something tantamount to lack of institutional control. This is one of the death blows that the NCAA uses in sports when there are a series of questionable or illegal practices that they cannot directly pin on a university.
Of all the complaints against Chancellor Katehi, this is the one that has the most meat on it. We know from Kristin Stoneking’s letter relaying information from Griselda Castro that a few things had happened previously that could have been seen as a prelude to this event.
First, there was a Mrak Hall protest in which the police showed up in full riot gear. When complaints were made, the administrators put the onus on the police and also blamed it on fatigue suffered by administrators.
But just as crucially, the chancellor was seen as preoccupied – as Ms. Castro put it, triple-booked.
So you have a pre-event incident in which the chancellor was too busy doing other things to have direct control – you have a case that her lack of administrative control may have contributed to the event. What you have now is not malice but negligence, and possibly incompetence.
However, all of this is very subjective. Unless further documents and communications surface, it would seem unlikely this is enough for the powers that be, who seem content with Chancellor Katehi’s contrition at this point, to terminate her and certainly not enough to force her to resign.
So, barring a smoking gun, the investigation is likely to show the use of force unjustified, and put the onus on the police rather than the chancellor’s office. The chancellor may come out looking out of touch and not in control, but that will not be enough to dismiss her.
All of this is predicated on no smoking guns and the belief that if there were something really damning to the chancellor, we would have found out about it by now.
None of this will satisfy the protesters and students angered at what has transpired. Bear in mind, the real problem is not Chancellor Katehi at all and would not be solved by her departure.
Recall the legislature’s role in the cutting of education funding. Recall the fact that the chancellor was hired by the same or similar Board of Regents currently in place, and therefore they would be inclined to hire someone who resembles Chancellor Katehi.
At this point, I believe Lt. Pike will be gone, the Chief might be gone as well, but the chancellor will keep her job unless there is a repeat of this – which also seems unlikely.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Vanguard: “No. Could they have avoided the pepper spraying? Certainly. But at the end of the day, they are rank amateurs.” – that does not let them off the hook….
Vanguard: “Even if you want to interpret chants from the protesters as actual threats – and I think that’s very questionable”
this is because the vanguard doesn’t ultimately want to have to come to terms with the protestors actions and admit there is a dark underbelly to protesting……
– you still have a good deal of time removed from those chants to mean they were not immanent and credible threats, you have the actions of the protesters sitting on the ground,
and in that time we did not see protestors showing any signs of letting up or backing down. ergo the threats were on the table in that window of time you are referring to. furthermore, the protestors “sitting on the ground..” is not an example of the protest becoming peaceful. when put in context, they were in a location intended to cut off the police, a continuance of their earlier threat. and anyone who saw the larger footage can see this….
nice try though.
[quote]However, all of this is very subjective. [/quote]
This article states the Vanguard’s view of events and the necessity of someone’s head to roll. Since the protestors were very much in the wrong, I don’t think the Vanguard’s assumption is necessarily an accurate one. Furthermore the Vanguard contradicts itself when it says:
[quote]Survive a week after a huge crisis, and you have a great chance of surviving the crisis all together. The most likely time that someone resigns is during the heat of a crisis – a fact that should be considered thoroughly when criticizing that heads must roll in any crisis. If the head doesn’t roll fairly quickly, there are good reasons to believe the head will never roll.[/quote]
According to the Vanguard’s assessment, if anyone was going to be fired it would have happened by now, yet paradoxically insists Lt. Pike will be fired at some point. You cannot have it both ways…
91 Octane makes good points…
[b]Occupy S. F. Attacks Police with Razors[/b]
[url]http://patdollard.com/2011/11/occupy-san-francisco-attacks-police-with-razors/[/url]
[b]OccupyOakland Protesters Surround, Attack Police With Paint Bombs[/b]
[url]http://www.breitbart.tv/occupyoakland-protesters-sorround-throw-paint-on-police/[/url]
[b]Occupy Burlington protesters attacked police tonight after a protester was shot dead at their squatters camp[/b]
[url]http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/occupy-protesters-attack-police-after-man-shot-dead-at-their-squatters-camp-video/[/url]
[b]Occupy Atlanta Protesters Attack Police Officers[/b]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGVmM9esEiE[/url]
[b]Occupy Portland Members made Bombs to attack Police[/b]
[url]http://www.soopermexican.com/2011/11/15/occupy-portland-members-made-bombs-to-attack-police/[/url]
[b]Occupy Wall Street protesters attack police…[/b]
[url]http://suffolkcountylibertyreport.com/sclr/?p=28905[/url]
Thanks to his strong union, it is unlikely that Pike will be fired.
Fodder for thought for those who are knee jerk supporters of unions.
That is a good point only for those that support unions and also want Lt. Pike fired.
Pike should be fired based only on his performance relative to his documented performance expectations. Unions preventing a justified firing is not a positive thing.
Related to this point, I am reading a great book “Empires of Light” which is a non-fiction account of main characters involved in the development and marketing of electricity and related industries. Edison kept shutting down and moving his factories as workers attempted to unionize. So they attempted mob extortion and lost their jobs. Several key engineers were promissed bonuses for solving critical problems but then Edison management refused to pay. Some of these people, like Tesla who created the AC motor, went on to create their own companies that competed with Edison. Had Tesla been represented by a union he would have likely stayed on with Edison fat-dumb-and-happy and never created the AC motor.
Unions do more harm than good.
Since this post and the comments following are all conjecture, let me make my own: I think the Chancellor will ultimately go if the truth ever comes out about who made the decision to use pepper spray, and I think Lt. Pike will stay regardless, and the Police Chief will either leave with a settlement in order to keep quiet or stay if the Chancellor goes.
Again, this story is no longer about whether the protestors were right or wrong, or the actions on the part of the police are justified. So, to those of you who continue commenting on that: move on, it doesn’t matter anymore and public opinion won’t change.
The story is “who knew what, and when did they know it.” Then, logically, after that, the story will probably be “who is covering up who knew what, and when they knew it.”
Whether one supports the Occupy or not, Pike’s pepper spray phunn meets the criteria of excessive force–terminate.
Of course the “Vanguard” teabaggers defend the cops as usual.
[quote]Of course the “Vanguard” teabaggers defend the cops as usual.[/quote]
So according to you any cop that uses excessive force should be fired from the job? No second chance/opportunity for retraining?
[quote]multiple meanings. 1) one who carries large bags of packaged tea for shipment. 2) a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as “teabagging” 3) one who has a job or talent that is low in social status 4) a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient. 5) also see “fagbag”, “lamer”, “noob”[/quote][b]Perezoso[/b], what’s the meaning of your personal attack? I’m missing your point, I think.
[i]So according to you any cop that uses excessive force should be fired from the job?[/i] [b]Yeah.[/b]
re the definition of “teabagger,” #5 sounds about right.
You mean you’re defending Lt Pike’s actions,[b] Bellamy boy[/b], aka “just sayin”? The Occupy peeps in Davis and Sac should be aware of that (not to say all the “liberal” sites you hang at).