In a sweeping irony on a number of fronts, the administrator who emerges from the pepper-spray debacle looking the best is Assistant Vice Chancellor Griselda Castro. The would-be hero was ultimately unable to prevail upon the Leadership Team, in terms of determining the actual make-up of the Occupiers, composed almost entirely of students, and ultimately her pleas for patience were disregarded.
This is greatly ironic because a year ago at this time, Griselda Castro was having to explain to the public the function of the Activism Response Team, the very team that students and civil rights were decrying in fear of infiltration.
The chancellor addressed Ms. Castro’s report, according to the task force, asking if she could “prove” that the protesters were mostly students. Castro replied, “I didn’t ask for IDs. It’s just from my sense of what I know.”
“The Leadership Team did not discuss the matter further,” they write.
Ms. Castro argued against the removal of the tents, suggesting that “police officers could have been posted to monitor and provide security for the encampment overnight.”
As the task force notes, “There is a financial cost to such arrangements, and providing security for the encampment might not be feasible as a long term solution to the problem. The question here, however, is not whether this approach is practical long term, but rather whether it could have been utilized at least for a few days.”
However, they argue, “Delaying the deployment of police to remove the tents for even a few days would have provided campus administrators more time to carefully evaluate the nature and scope of the problem, more time to carefully evaluate the costs and consequences of different university responses to the encampment and more time for discussion, negotiation, and mediation with the protesters to attempt to defuse the situation.”
They add, “Also, and importantly, it would have created the opportunity to expand the decision-making process by reaching out to the campus community more broadly.”
The task force hammers the administration, in particular Vice Chancellor Fred Wood, for failing to take heed.
“Vice Chancellor Wood also bears substantial responsibility by failing to respond to Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro’s warnings about removing the tents and her report that few if any of the protesters were non-affiliates,” they write.
The report continues, “On the 10 p.m. Leadership Team conference call of Nov. 17, 2011, Assistant Vice Chancellor (AVC) for Student Affairs Griselda Castro spoke for nearly forty minutes, detailing her conversations with protesters, counseling caution on the part of the Leadership Team, and advocating against removal of the tents. As Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and AVC Castro’s immediate supervisor, Vice Chancellor Wood would be expected to ensure that AVC Castro’s concerns were carefully considered and evaluated.”
They conclude: “Instead, AVC Castro’s statement was met with silence.” In fact, this was far more significant than that. She spoke to the Leadership Group for about forty minutes and she reported to Kroll that their response “was dead silence.”
It is actually worse than that, because AVC Castro was specifically in place to help the administration avoid the kinds of police actions that occurred last November. In fact, the group called the Activism Response Team or Student Activism Team was at the center of a controversy where it was accused by some student groups of infiltrating their ranks.
That proved to be an unfounded fear, as it became clear that a plain-clothed police officer was not working with that team.
According to a release from a student group last year, “The information has shocked students, staff and faculty at UC Davis as they begin to examine it. The documents reveal that high-ranking administrators, staff members who work closely with students and leaders of the campus police department formed a network called the ‘Activism Response Team’ to keep close tabs on student activists and their plans.”
Jeff Austin, one of the members of the Student Activism Team, told the Vanguard, ” The police are NOT part of our volunteer team. We only contact them if we observe an illegal activity or if a student’s action might result in someone getting injured or killed.”
“One of our goals by being there is to reduce or eliminate the need for police presence, as quite often, they are seen as a threat by many students, especially when emotions are running high,” he said.
Last year, the Vanguard spoke to Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Griselda Castro.
The Vice Chancellor believed that the purpose of the SAT had “been misconstrued” in how it had been portrayed by students and those in the media.
“We have always had a student affairs presence at student rallies and demonstrations,” she said. She said they have long been known to students in the free speech area and they show up whenever there is a rally.
She argued that, “We’re very well versed in freedom of expression and the First Amendment. And we’re very strong student advocates.” She added, “All of the team and the staff are very progressive individuals who really care about the issues.”
“Our premise is that if we have student affairs staff out there that understand the issues, that care about the students and are talking with them, then there is less of a need for police involvement, police action,” she said.
She said when protesters come to Mrak Hall and they know they are coming, they have staff there to meet them. They see themselves as facilitators for the students.
“It hasn’t been to suppress,” she said. “We’re very clear in the training that they are not to stop activities. That they are not there to prevent activity. They are not there to give direction to the police.”
While students were not surprisingly and probably appropriately skeptical of the role of the Student Activism Team, it was the work of Associate Vice Chancellor Castro that might have thwarted the pepper-spray debacle entirely – if, ironically enough, the Leadership Team had listened to Ms. Castro in the first place.
Ms. Castro was there representing Student Affairs and supposed to be providing advice to the Leadership Team.
Kroll notes in providing background, “As students began organizing an increasing number of demonstrations against funding cuts and tuition increases in 2009, Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro and her staff found it difficult to help with demonstrations and take care of the more routine aspects of their jobs.”
That was the genesis of a group that would provide support with volunteers recruited from UC Davis employees to form the Student Activism Response team that “would maintain contact with student activists and report to Castro, who would report to the administration.”
Kroll writes, “The administration began to have Leadership Team conference calls and Castro sometimes joined the calls so that she could communicate directly with the Leadership Team.”
According to Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro, her staff of three activities advisors “were in the middle of the [California Highway Patrol] and the students” when the activists attempted to march onto the freeway. Castro, who was attending a funeral that day, said that her staff “prevented a calamity out there. But they said we never want to be put in this situation again …. It was clear that I couldn’t … tap them all the time and take them away from their jobs.”
Kroll provides details of the discussions between AVC Castro and the Leadership Team.
They report, as we have already noted, “On the evening of Thursday, November 17, Castro observed the activists who had erected the encampment that afternoon, and reported to the Leadership Team later that night that “the only non-affiliates I saw were people from the interfaith communities providing food … and they were not spending the night.”
Remember, this is pivotal in understanding the series of missteps by the administration, because it demonstrates they had on-the-ground intelligence as to the lack of non-affiliates, and still ignored it.
Indeed, we get an interesting tidbit, because the police did not agree with Ms. Castro and reported this to the Leadership Team through the police chief.
According to a UC Davis officer who also spent the night at Mrak Hall on November 15, “Through conversation with the occupants, it was determined that the majority were NOT affiliated with the University [but were] part of the ‘Occupy’ movement.”
“On the Leadership Team conference call on the night of November 17, Chief Spicuzza said that her officers believed that 80 percent of the activists in the encampment on the Quad were not students, according to Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro,” Kroll reports.
Ironically, even the chief believed Ms. Castro was better situated than her own officers.
Kroll writes, “When Castro challenged this assessment, Spicuzza replied that she believed Castro’s assessment was more accurate than that of her own officers.”
She would tell Kroll investigators that “she then proceeded to make a long argument to the Leadership Team on the advantages of not removing the encampment on the following day, and her remarks were met with ‘silence.’ “
According to the report, AVC Castro told them, “I didn’t say ‘don’t do anything’ because I’m not the risk management … I have to be respectful of the people on the call who have the risk management on their shoulders if something goes wrong.”
As has been noted, she spoke to the Leadership Team for about forty minutes and, as she reported to Kroll, their response “was dead silence.”
AVC Castro told Kroll, “What I said to them was that this had to be very careful. That we were in this moment in time where there was this massive cultural shift. There is a lot of support for this movement. And that we had to land on the right side of history on this one. And so, I said, you know, I’ve talked with them … I offered alternatives. They said ‘yes, interesting, come talk to us, but [you should understand that] Occupy is the strategy. If you take the tents down, we will be back with more the next day. And if you take those down, we’ll be back the next day with more. And we’ll merge with the Davis.’ They [also] told me [that Davis and UC Davis are] separate encampments because they wanted that student space and they had different issues than the city … they didn’t want the anarchists here. They said … ‘we voted the black block anarchists out.’ … I asked about non-affiliates. They said [they were] students, you know, there might be a couple of alumni, but then again I saw religious groups out there supporting them.”
According to Castro, “But when people said ‘but it’s costing the University,’ I said … that it’d be cheaper to put two porta- potties and have the police patrol, than if something goes wrong, the months of litigation that could follow … it’s going to be Thanksgiving, it’s going to rain, the finals are coming. It’ll blow over. Following these comments, the Leadership Team ‘was very, very silent,’ according to Kroll, a comment attributed to AVC Castro.
Finally, the university might have averted this event had they just listened to AVC Castro once, at 2 pm on Friday, one hour before the tent removal operation was scheduled to begin.
AVC Castro, according to Kroll, became concerned with the amount and level of activity in the Quad south of the Memorial Union.
Kroll reports, “She called Vice Chancellor Wood and asked him if the tent removal operation could be delayed. Wood informed her that the operation could not be delayed because it would be too risky in the dark, according to Castro.”
The start time was actually moved forward at the direction of the chancellor.
The administration, it seems, had put Griselda Castro into this position precisely to avert the problems that befell them on November 18. They had three opportunities to listen to her. First, with regard to the number of non-affiliates. Second, with regard to delaying and allowing midterms and Thanksgiving to diffuse the problem. Finally, one hour before with regard to the number of students on the Quad.
They put her into that position, she was on the ground in contact with the protesters, she had the best intelligence of what was happening on the ground, and they ignored her. Hindsight is 20/20, but it is difficult to justify this.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Actually we still don’t know how many (if any) outside agitators there were. No one seems to know for sure. Which just goes to show how difficult a situation like this can be. Nevertheless, there still needs to be a high level of professionalism on the university’s part, no matter what things some students choose to do…
What I do find ironic however, is the student criticism of SAT, when in fact it is just the sort of thing that cuts down on police confrontation. Or is police confrontation what some of the protestors are really after?
“Actually we still don’t know how many (if any) outside agitators there were.”
Actually we do. It was laid out in the report. What we know is that of those arrested or pepper sprayed, two were not students and both of those were recent graduates. From eyewitness accounts we know there were three categories of people: (A) students, (B) recent grads, (C) Davis residents. There is no evidence that there was anyone from outside of the community there.
“What I do find ironic however, is the student criticism of SAT, when in fact it is just the sort of thing that cuts down on police confrontation. “
At that time there was concern that the administration was attempting to infiltrate them. That was bolstered by the coincidence of the plain-clothed officer. It turns out that had nothing to do with the administrative efforts, but the officer lied to the students about her identity and that poisoned relations.
I think the bigger irony is that Ms. Castro could have stopped this whole thing, in fact that was her job, and they didn’t listen to her.
[quote]Actually we do. It was laid out in the report. What we know is that of those arrested or pepper sprayed, two were not students and both of those were recent graduates. From eyewitness accounts we know there were three categories of people: (A) students, (B) recent grads, (C) Davis residents. There is no evidence that there was anyone from outside of the community there.[/quote]
If they are not registered students, they are “outside agitators”, no? Secondly, it does not appear from the report that there was certainty – as Castro said, “I didn’t check IDs…”
Depends on how you want to define outside agitators, I think they were concerned that members of the occupy movement would be coming in from out of town. Do you reasonably consider someone who lives in Davis or is a recent alum an outside agitator? I don’t think that’s what they were afraid of.
‘Secondly, it does not appear from the report that there was certainty – as Castro said, “I didn’t check IDs…” “
There wasn’t certainty other than the 80% OUTSIDE agitator figure being inaccurate, but who was in the best position to know? And what the report cited: “There Was a Failure to Investigate Whether or Not “Non- Affiliates” in the UC Davis Occupy Encampment Were Present” – in other words they just assumed.
[quote]”There wasn’t certainty other than the 80% OUTSIDE agitator figure being inaccurate, but who was in the best position to know?”[/quote]Maybe the police who talked to demonstrators and determined there were non-students in the group? I notice you haven’t mentioned that part of the report here yet.
The Reynoso/Kroll package described several, conflicting reports about outsiders and found UCD officials wanting in not confirming them one way or another. This is just one more of the confusion contributors cited.
[quote]”In a sweeping irony on a number of fronts, the administrator who emerges from the pepper-spray debacle looking the best is Assistant Vice Chancellor Griselda Castro. The would-be hero….”[/quote]Thinking back to your very critical 2011 reports, it might be instructive in taking care not to jump to conclusions on little confirmed information.
It appears Ms. Castro’s team operated in the manner which she suggested they would be conducting business. Too bad they couldn’t confirm (in the Leadership Team’s eyes) their observations. Or, the “non-affiliates” issue didn’t weigh very heavily in the ultimate decision to haul out the tents.
In singling out report heroes, don’t forget Andrew Wells who apparently reported a less threatening situation, but also was unable to have much impact on decision-making.
Like the way we’re evaluating Katehi and some others, we’re judging Castro and Wells primarily on their own post-incident reporting of their own performances, including this odd bit from her account about a lengthy appeal to follow her to the “right side of history” during a Leadership Team teleconference:[quote]”Castro then proceeded to speak for about 40 minutes and the response ‘was dead silence’.”[/quote]Maybe they just stopped listening after about 4 minutes!
Elaine
“If they are not registered students, they are “outside agitators”, no? Secondly, it does not appear from the report that there was certainty – as Castro said, “I didn’t check IDs”
My answer would be “no”. I would not consider members of the faith community bringing in food to be “outside agitators”.
With recent graduates who have remained local, the call may be a little more difficult in defining the word “affiliate”.
Am I for instance, as an alumni, intermittent volunteer faculty, and intermittently a speaker or presenter at special events an ” affiliate” ?
Would I have been an “affiliate” or an “outside agitator” in your eyes since I would not have been present in any of those capacities, but rather in the capacity of a concerned citizen ?
medwoman, you asked about insubordination awhile back. I can’t locate your question, but here is a piece from the Kroll report that directly deals with that issue: [quote]”(When Chief Spicuzza) directed her officers that batons, helmets and pepper spray were not to be utilized, she was flatly rejected. She opted not to follow up with a direct order to her subordinates to comply (an option within her power as Chief of Police).”[/quote]Here’s another part of the report that raises more questions than it answers. It further shows that refusal of both police and demonstrators to cooperate with Justice Reynoso was a disservice to his efforts to find the truth.
JustSaying
Thanks for finding that specific quote. It does seem to address the specific issue of insubordination. If I recall correctly, no direct order, no subordination.
Goodness knows the University is in desperate need of a hero or heroine to off-set the devastating summations of a totally dysfunctional department and systemic blunders and flaws most everywhere else.
Ms. Castro’s role is portrayed in the first-person, “I”, and she certainly puts herself in a most favorable light. The Reynoso report embraces her rendering without qualification or substantiation. Castro’s story raises her stock at the cost of the reputation of the other 10 members of the Leadership Team.
An interesting question to direct to any or all members of the Leadership Team, should they show their face again: “Do you agree with what Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro had to say about herself, and you?”
Perhaps the lesson hear is that administrators do indeed learn. From what I hear Katehi was brought in to push research at UC Davis and move it higher in the rankings–student protest was a distraction. Now it is clearly front and center.
Just as an aside, I doubt the university saw its mission as other than education/research. What the Reynoso report makes clear is that a new part of the UC mission must be how to handle students expressing their opinions through large protests that have the potential to get out of hand. That is now going to have to be included as part of the UC’s “educational mission” that was not originally comtemplated. This is largely why I am not comfortable with the idea “heads should roll”, until the university refines its policies/mission and provides the appropriate training. I don’t think they ever comtemplated such an eventuality…
[quote]Depends on how you want to define outside agitators, I think they were concerned that members of the occupy movement would be coming in from out of town. Do you reasonably consider someone who lives in Davis or is a recent alum an outside agitator? I don’t think that’s what they were afraid of…
There wasn’t certainty other than the 80% OUTSIDE agitator figure being inaccurate, but who was in the best position to know? And what the report cited: “There Was a Failure to Investigate Whether or Not “Non- Affiliates” in the UC Davis Occupy Encampment Were Present” – in other words they just assumed.[/quote]
Bottom line – the question of outside agitators is still an unknown…
[quote]”An interesting question to direct to any or all members of the Leadership Team, should they show their face again: ‘Do you agree with what Assistant Vice Chancellor Castro had to say about herself, and you?'”[/quote]There are at least two other “would be heroes” who’ve got some explaining to do when they run into their co-workers today, Andrew Wells and Dispatch Supervisor Leticia Garcia-Hernandez.
“I doubt the university saw its mission as other than education/research. What the Reynoso report makes clear is that a new part of the UC mission must be how to handle students expressing their opinions through large protests that have the potential to get out of hand. “
This is really a strange comment Elaine. I know Maynard Skinner when he was in a similar position to John Meyer told stories about how he had to work with Bob Black in his protests to avert disaster.
My wife tells me of protests in her day on Prop 209 and dealing with Chancellor Vanderhoef. Both of them did a good job in response at that point.
And since I have been doing this, it seems to me a flubbed protest has occurred at least once a year.
If they did not think or know that their job involved handling college protests, then they were very naive to the history of this city for the last 40 to 50 years.
“
Bottom line – the question of outside agitators is still an unknown…”
No. The bottom line is that it wasn’t known at the time they made the decision and if it was a reason for their decision, they should have found out.
[quote]”No. The bottom line is that it wasn’t known at the time they made the decision and if it was a reason for their decision, they should have found out.”[/quote]Why? I have to admit, I don’t understand why all the concern about “non-affiliates.” I do see why you decided to supplement the Reynoso/Kroll report with your “eye witness account” in one of the first reports–now that the question of “outside agitators is still an unknown”….or not.
JusySaying
“Why? I have to admit, I don’t understand why all the concern about “non-affiliates.”
I think it became a concern when both VC Meyer and Chancellor Katehi made statements that concerns about the actions of ” non-affiliates”,
not clearly defined in my opinion, factored in their decision making. The existence, numbers, identities, intent and action of these “non-affiliates”
were unknown, and yet the administration, under no direct threat, chose to proceed as though this was the greatest risk they were facing.
It is not clear from any of the materials presented that any relative risk assessment was even considered prior to making the administrative decision to clear the tents.
Again, even if this were a major concern, I think there were many peaceful alternative actions which could have maintained student safety and provided a much less sensational outcome than the path that was stumbled into rather than a path that should have been deliberately thoughtfully planned out.
Other than not wanting our daughters raped by non-affiliates, there was some consideration in how outsiders would affect police operations, their timing, etc. It seems to have been part of the confusion about the justification for going in after the tents. It’s odd that it took on such importance, at least it did in the investigation.
Actually, I think there was some risk assessment–how moving at 3 a.m. rather than 3 p.m., for example, would find fewer people with whom to deal.
The chancellor’s “don’t want another Berkeley” and “don’t want a party night” instructions actually resulted in the risk assessment efforts getting discounted in attempts to follow her desires. Too bad she was in town that week.
JustSaying
You are right. There was some consideration of risk in the areas you mentioned. However, in view of the number of instances of student confrontations with police over the years on UC campuses, I would have anticipated that a more evidence based and less fear driven approach might have been utilized. Hopefully the forum and police commission mentioned by Katehi in her statement on the 13th will actually result in some changes in communication between civilian and police command, training and police command structure.
[b]”Non-Affiliates”[/b] is a term defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Division 10, Section 100001. [Ref] ([url]http://weblinks.westlaw.com/result/default.aspx?cite=5CAADCS100001&db=1000937&findtype=L&fn=_top&pbc=DA010192&rlt=CLID_FQRLT9097837121174&rp=/Search/default.wl&rs=WEBL12.04&service=Find&spa=CCR-1000&sr=TC&vr=2.0[/url])
In the Report, there was no sign that the protesters and the admin had a different understanding of the meaning of non-affiliates.
The term “outside agitator” was not mentioned in the Report. Using it interchangeably it could alter the meaning that the speaker intended.
^^
Didn’t realize that link is timed. I guess you would just have to browse through it: http://government.westlaw.com/linkedslice/default.asp?SP=CCR-1000
[quote]A. “Non-affiliate” means any person who is not any of the following: a student, officer, official volunteer, employee, Regent, or emeritus of the University of California or a member of a household authorized to reside in University Property. As used in this definition:
1. “student” means any person who (a) is enrolled in or registered with an academic program of the University; (b) has completed the immediately preceding term, is not presently enrolled, and is eligible for re-enrollment; or (c) is on an approved educational leave or other approved leave status, or is on filing-fee status.
2. “official volunteer” means any person who is: (a) listed as an officer or a board member of the recognized campus alumni association, including its committees or related clubs; (b) listed as an officer or a board member of a support group formally recognized by the particular campus; or (c) formally registered through the relevant Campus Human Resources/Staff Personnel office and authorized to provide volunteer services on behalf of the University in campus facilities (e.g., hospitals, museums, etc.).
3. “employee” means any person who is listed in the campus payroll system, regardless of the percentage of time associated with the person’s employment, including a staff retiree who has been recalled for University employment and other individuals to whom the University is contractually obligated to provide access to University property equivalent to that allowed to University employees.
4. “emeritus” means any person who holds the title of “emeritus” pursuant to Regents Standing Order 103.5 and section 120 of the University of California Academic Personnel Manual. [/quote]
Edgar, yup, they all could define it, just couldn’t agree on the count. But, why was it so important at the time?
I think that is because the operation plan included a dispersal order.
Penal Code 409, only applies to riots, routs, or unlawful assemblies. [Ref] ([url]http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/409.html[/url]) On Nov18, the Protesters were not yet rioting or routing, therefore the legal basis for the dispersal order was unlawful assemblies.
On Nov18, if there were only students on the Quad, then there would be no unlawful assembly to disperse. For an unlawful assembly, the police would have to reasonably believe (in my understanding) that any one of the below happened:
1) Non-affiliates were camping (thus violates CCR Title 5 Sec 100005)
2) Non-affiliates were demonstrating (thus violates CCR Title 5 Sec 100004)
3) … (possibly other regulations that I don’t know of)
As far as I understand, this has nothing to do with the legal basis of clearing the tents. It has to do with the rigidity of trying to follow the operation plan that was drafted.
Perhaps the police could simply try to remove the tents. Then if the Protesters tries to resist in the form of a riot, then 409 PC can be announced on the basis of a riot, not an unlawful assembly.
[quote]This is really a strange comment Elaine. I know Maynard Skinner when he was in a similar position to John Meyer told stories about how he had to work with Bob Black in his protests to avert disaster.
My wife tells me of protests in her day on Prop 209 and dealing with Chancellor Vanderhoef. Both of them did a good job in response at that point. [/quote]
If you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, it appears that Katehi is the one primarily at fault, if Vanderhoef would have done “a good job”. But it seems to me he made some missteps too while Chancellor. I don’t think most universities see handling protests as part of their “mission” – but it turns out they are going to have to 😉