For months the Sacramento Bee has been breaking important news stories about Chancellor Katehi, ranging from her board work for the DeVry educational institute, her work on the board of Wiley & Sons textbook company, and of course the infamous pepper spray scrubbing contract. These stories play an integral role in the investigation and paid administrative leave, and the call for her resignation by student protesters and lawmakers.
But defenders are starting to accuse the Sacramento newspaper of piling it on. This week’s story reports that the chancellor sent officials overseas and across the country to learn image-boosting techniques.
On Wednesday, the Bee reported, “Last November, as UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi was searching for ways to improve the university’s online image, she dispatched staff to companies in Switzerland, Texas and Maryland to study their digital operations.
“The trips cost more than $17,000 in airfare, lodging and other expenses, according to travel records and emails released to The Sacramento Bee on Wednesday in response to a May 5 California Public Records Act request. The visit to Switzerland by three members of the team came after Katehi visited Nestlé’s Digital Acceleration Lab in June 2015 in Vevey, Switzerland, on the shores of Lake Geneva, records indicate.”
The article quotes from a September 13 email where Ms. Katehi wrote, “This gave me an idea to create a similar lab at UC Davis, primarily to help us accelerate our understanding and use of social media in communicating internally and externally and in understanding how UC Davis is perceived both in California but in the U.S. and around the world.
“We have started the process of putting the team together that will create the lab together,” Ms. Katehi added. “We will tremendously benefit if we could send two or three of our people for a day’s visit to your lab so they can get an idea of how it is set up and how the training programs are in place.”
Lee Houskeeper, an advisor, sent out a response on Friday, arguing, “For months it has appeared that the Sacramento Bee has become a partisan in the matter of UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi. The paper’s often one-sided and breathless reporting of issues with zero real news in them is something we hear about from a lot of people.”
He argued, “If you have any remaining doubts about the Bee’s squishy objectivity, look at its reporting today and yesterday on how Chancellor Katehi led the creation of a Digital Acceleration Lab at UC Davis.”
Pressing on, he argues that the Bee has failed “to grasp the realities of social media and to harness its power to connect with new audiences,” to which he attributes the Bee’s “plummeting circulation.”
“Linda Katehi was not going to let UC Davis make that same mistake,” he continues.” As an accomplished engineer and academic, she has long understood that social media is the way people communicate today and will communicate exclusively tomorrow. She and members of the faculty sought to create a world class Digital Accelerator Center at UC Davis to benefit faculty, staff and students. Having a social media training center on the campus will keep Davis competitive and on the leading edge of research – whether that’s in food science or political science.”
He argues, “So what did she do? She set out to learn more from the companies who have advanced Digital Accelerators – Nestle, Marriott, and Dell. She publicly reported on these trips and as an added bonus met with the CEO of Nestle – an important partner for one of the world’s largest schools of food, agriculture, and nutrition.”
“Digital Accelerator,” he would argue, is an emerging field where many companies have developed means to respond online to a rapidly changing communications environment.
However, Mr. Houskeeper argues that the Bee has attempted to spin this into a negative story and a conspiracy.
He notes that the Bee headlined its story this week as follows:
UC Davis chancellor sent aides to Switzerland to learn image-boosting tactics
- University spent more than $17,000 on trips to Switzerland, Texas and Maryland
- Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi wanted to build digital acceleration lab at UC Davis
- Under Katehi, UCD strategic communications budget went from $2.93 million to $5.47 million
“Image boosting tactics? Please. Can the Luddite editors at the Bee at least try to see the difference between ‘Mad Men’ era spin and fundamental, DNA-level changes in communications and research? The snarky claim of ‘image-boosting’ says more about the Bee’s mindset than Linda Ketehi’s,” he argues.
“$17,000? Doesn’t seem like a lot for a $4 billion organization like UC Davis to spend on core digital fact-finding from the masters of the game,” he continues. “A $5.47 million strategic communications budget? Actually, paltry for a leading university dealing with a huge volume of communications initiatives and more than a few crises. Did the Bee even bother to see what other UCs spend on communications, to put UCD’s budget in context?
“And here’s the icing on the cake,” he stated. “The UC Office of the President (UCOP), which soldiers forth on its compromised investigation of Chancellor Katehi, released these documents on travel to Switzerland etc to the Bee without the courtesy of sharing them with Chancellor Katehi or her team. We’ve said all along that the UCOP is playing games with the release of public information to stack the deck against the Chancellor.”
Mr. Houskeeper and Ms. Katehi’s legal team believe there will be more of these type of stories that they call “squishy,” with “zero real news in them.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Who is Mr Housekeeper? The beat goes on….
The one who is supposed to clean up ‘messes’? ‘Sanitize’ surfaces?
The Wolf
No “e” in the last name
Accept irony when you find it… or have you changed the VG position re: spelling/grammar?
It would seem the the Bee has no monopoly on “squishiness”.
Mr. Housekeeper picks up on a single phrase “image boosting tactics” and then proceeds to list 3 completely factual statements beneath. He does not appear to be disputing the fact that she spent this amount of money on the information gathering, that she wanted to build a “digital acceleration lab” at UCD, nor the increase in the budget allotted for what is essentially public relations under a fancier name. ( My link would not post so just Google Nestle digital accelerator to check their goals in their own words). It simply seems that he does not like the fact that there might be an alternative and less flattering view of these activities and expenditures.
For me, it is now, and has always been all about judgement and sound decision making. Fiscal responsibility would seem to be a part of the Chancellor’s role.
My question would be, was this a wise use of university funds ? Given that one of the three main accelerators to be studied was a short trip down the road to Nestle, why the need for expensive trips to distant plants ? With the current state of electronic communications, her team could not have made a physical trip to the local plant and virtual tours of those more distant ? Now $17000 is probably not a huge sum of money to the Chancellor, but I know a number of students for whom this amount would make the difference between attaining their education…..or not.
Yet, David doesn’t point out the ‘no “e”‘ in your post… only others… [Houskeeper]… yet there are two “e”s in the name, just not three… whatever…
hpierce
Pardon my error. And I would also point out yours. David does not do the spelling and grammar corrections. We have a volunteer for that duty. I am greatly appreciative of her efforts on behalf of the Vanguard and would allow her some slack for not catching every error.
This is certainly open to debate. No need to bring up a poor student who couldn’t attend school for lack of $17,000. The same could be said for almost any programs. Why send probes to outer atmosphere when we still have people living under poverty line? Why do we need to understand how the universe started when there are still people starving?
From my point of view, I believe UCD definitely deserves a better press. When I travel outside of Davis, and talk about the great academic and transformational work we do at UCD, not many people are aware. To most people, UCD is a one of the UC campuses, it is an OK school, and it is in a small “unknown” city. Most are not aware of the many great programs at UCD. I believe that we definitely need more publicity.
This is a good question that applies to many of the charges that have been levied against Katehi. The media (including the Vanguard (see the highly unflattering picture above that has been used repeatedly in Katehi articles))–and particularly the Bee–have put a negative spin on Katehi’s actions without providing context necessary to determine how out of line her practices have been. The Bee has a legitimate axe to grind over UCD’s stonewalling in response to records requests. It’s certainly legitimate to question Katehi’s actions and the incompetent and bumbling way she has responded. But it’s also legitimate to consider whether the Bee’s objectivity is compromised because of its adversarial relationship with the University.
I understand the point here, but two wrongs don’t make a right. If other UC’s are expending exorbitant amounts of money on media communications, that doesn’t necessarily make it right that Katehi nearly doubled the budget for media communications for UCD on her watch to match other UC’s excesses.
Its not the cost. In the greater scheme of things its a pittance.
The problem is the “War Room” or “Bunker” mentality.
In fairness to Katehi there were many who were out to get her and if you want to include the Sac Bee and the Enterprise go ahead. After all they did finally get on board with getting her out at the very end, sort of like Russia declaring war on Japan in the last weeks of WWII.
But so what? A free press is under no obligation to be fair to Linda Katehi.
“The article quotes from a September 13 email where Ms. Katehi wrote, “This gave me an idea to create a similar lab at UC Davis, primarily to help us accelerate our understanding and use of social media in communicating internally and externally and in understanding how UC Davis is perceived both in California but in the U.S. and around the world.”
Personally, I don’t see this latest revelation as having much to do with the reasons why Katehi is being investigated. However, it does point out that Katehi has been fixated on UCD’s image for some reason, with a desire to make UCD #1 no matter the cost. Under her watch the strategic communications budget nearly DOUBLED. That is a huge chunk of money just to improve UCD’s image in the media, which was already stellar. But apparently stellar wasn’t good enough – UCD needed to be top in the nation according to Katehi’s world view…
UCD under this Chancelor has needed better PR: maybe this was a good thing but appears more nefarious given the scrubbing contract and agree could have done virtually. Also given her desire/need for her own accomplishments (and touting others’ as her own) to be center stage, this story is also in line with her MO.
I have no problem with increasing UCD’s stature as a top university but not the number 1 priority as it seems to be. I would imagine she saw this process as elevating her reputation so she could move to a higher position elsewhere. I saw little evidence she tried to engage with community or campus (the latter at some pressure).
I wish some of this money would go to simple things like janitorial work in the Haring restrooms across from the Silo where the buses all stop on campus.
True, and I had wished we could have more money to build a few more garages. But the other angel to it is that if UCD has better publicity, we could have more endowment funds that will get these things fixed, especially now that the State is not interested in funding the so-called “public” universities like the UC.
I see no problem with pushing UCD to be a better school, and I’m all for the idea that UCD should become #1.
And I came to understand that people from different disciplines have different world view. For people from the sciences and engineering, the goal has always been to be #1. You strive to build the large particle collider, the fastest car, the most powerful rocket, etc. It’s very much like athletics. You always compete to be #1.
Tia, you appear to claim to know what Ms K believes/thinks… you have lost any credibility to protest those opining what you believe/think… at least with me… “fixated”? Pretty strong word… particularly from one sensitive to others attributing ‘motivations’/beliefs to you…
I also will opine that Ms K was less concerned about UCD’s “image” than her own… although, in respect for your oft cited statements, I do not pretend to know what Ms K believes/thinks… nor your beliefs/motivations… but given the actions of her ‘defense team’, am pretty sure my opinion has more evidence than you are bringing to this discussion…
To be clear, I am questioning your logic, not you as an individual…
I wrote “fixated” (not Tia), and I stand by what I said. Katehi herself kept going on and on about how important it was to boost UCD’s image when trying to explain away the pepper spray scrubbing incident, as if UCD somehow desperately needed its image boosted. She seems to see an urgent need for UCD to be #1 in the nation, based on comments she has made. See:
http://blogs.ucdavis.edu/higher-ed-matters/2016/04/03/chancellor-linda-katehi-uc-davis-ranked-1-by-forbes-as-best-value-college-for-women-in-stem/
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/updated-highly-ranked-nation-and-world
http://blogs.ucdavis.edu/higher-ed-matters/
From http://www.sactownmag.com/August-September-2015/Linda-Katehi-Leans-In/index.php?cparticle=2&siarticle=1
“Four years after UC Davis police pepper-sprayed student protesters, chancellor Linda Katehi has not only strived to build stronger ties with her campus community, but her hyper-ambitious plans to transform UCD into one of the top 10 schools in America—and maybe help save the planet while doing it—finds her building an entirely new legacy for her university, and for herself.”
I see no problem with pushing UCD to be a better school, and I’m all for the idea that UCD should become #1.
And I came to understand that people from different disciplines have different world view. For people from the sciences and engineering, the goal has always been to be #1. You strive to build the large particle collider, the fastest car, the most powerful rocket, etc. It’s very much like athletics. You always compete to be #1.
If the Chancellor succeeded in bring UCD to the top ranking university, or even the top ranking public university, I think she well deserves the reputation/legacy.
To generalize a little bit, It is not wise to question the leader of an organization when he/she shows interest in promoting the organization and making it a better one. He/She is hired to do exactly that and if he/she is successful, he/she deserves the legacy. Serving an organization and building a stellar career don’t go against each other. In most cases, they are actually the same thing.
hpierce
I will be equally clear. I have never claimed to know the motivation for what Chancellor Katehi chooses to do. I have never accused her of anything that she has not openly admitted to. If you believe that this is not true, please post the quote that you believe supports this claim.
What I have repeatedly said is that I believe that the number of “missteps” that she has, in her own words made, and my interpretation of the consequences of her documented actions have indicated is that she is not a good fit for Chancellor of a public university.
I await your demonstration of any comment of mine about “what she thinks”.
This melodrama, a veritable sissy-fit, is a voyeur’s delight. But a vital point must be made right about now. Nothing that results is going to allow the continuance of–and obedience to–the long self-proclaimed notion that the University of California faculty and leadership is “the best of the best.”
Remember that phrase, taxpayer? It’s what we’ve been fed for decades in defense of inflated salaries and bloated personnel numbers for the entire UC System. All those “associates,” “vices,” “seniors” “administrative” in various combinations. This army of university heads, their advisors, and their attorneys, this is “the best of the best” on full public display.
Now look–really look–at how they behave. We pay for this clown factory, are we getting our money’s worth? As a figure of speech, we sure do, it’s extremely entertaining. But as a “pay for services rendered” measure, we’re better off putting the whole University leadership on the minimum wage and shifting the millions in savings towards lowering tuition charges.
The entire University of California operation and policy structure is going to get public exposure as it has never received before. There are some folks behind closed mahogany doors in Oakland in profound fear right now. The Legislature must and will act. Long after the complaining parties and respondents go wherever fate decides. some eventual good will come from this soap opera.
SacBee has a state salaries website — it’s very informative to look up UC salaries. And comparing teacher salaries at a high school with teacher salaries at UCDavis, what a huge disparity.
“The entire University of California operation and policy structure is going to get public exposure as it has never received before. There are some folks behind closed mahogany doors in Oakland in profound fear right now. The Legislature must and will act. Long after the complaining parties and respondents go wherever fate decides. some eventual good will come from this soap opera.”
Phillip
It must to be something more drastic than the Napolitano’s-Katehi’s feud to force legislature to act .As you call this soap opera, it did not get much attention from the legislature at all beside five or six legislators which sided with Napolitano in this feud. Regents don’t care . Only one ex-officio regent Gavin Newsom tweeted against Katehi long time ago. If the legislature cut the money for UC than the UC administration will implement furlough and other budget cuts which won’t hurt them much in preserving their status quo. Probably it would end again in turmoil with students protests in the UC campuses and brutal police action against protesters . The UC establishment knows and has power to preserve the existing status quo . Replacing one or two UC presidents or chancellors means nothing .. The California Constitution and California Supreme Court decisions protects UC administration quite well .
I read the article in the Bee. While I was interested in the expense, I recognized that the article did not include the resulting benefits to the UCD community. I completely forgot it.
Now that Houskeeper has dredged it back up, I find that my interest is greater. I question why the trip cost $17K for 3 people to fly to Europe for one day. I would like to know the status of the project and if the project is confined to Mrak Hall or is it helping broadly across colleges and departments.
There are other systems that the University is spending money on that are questionable, such as a new degree certification app when there already an existing one being used that is working just fine, first class travel and unnecessary travel by directors will no clear purpose, etc. Because Katehi didn’t order these, it isn’t newsworthy, so it seems. Maybe that is Houskeeper’s point.
Have you checked airfares recently? Hotel, per diem, etc. $17 grand sounds about right.
I agree.
WOW. I checked it out. Fares are $2300 RT. Hotel rooms $1000 per night. It seems to be correct that it costs $17K to send 3 people for one day to Geneva.
So…was it worth it? What came from this visit?
ryankelly
Whether it’s worth is open for debate and quite honestly will take time to evaluate. I believe it is worth it if the initiative can indeed improve UCD’s publicity and image online, which most likely make positive impact on endowment.
Without the Chancellor championing for the effort, I’m afraid we’ll never really learn whether it’s going to be an effective initiative.
Indeed.
Lake Geneva is a fabulous place to vacation, and very, very expensive!
I believe it’s where the company sets up its headquarter. I’d say all Switzerland is great for vacation and very expensive!
As I stated many times, Chancellor Katehi has raised more funds for the campus than any prior Chancellor. She raised over $1 billion for the campus one year earlier than projected. Katehi held the Chancellor position for only six years and bringing more than 1 billion for the campus is beyond imagination . Her vision and goals to bring more money to the UC Davis requires good communication tools. As the chancellor and decision maker with her executive power, Katehi had all rights to shop around for the best communication tools she could find . We are living in the 21st Century, the drones and the digital media era. The technology is changing so quickly and it is require a lot of money not to fall behind in technological advancement and not to became a second class citizen in the world of higher education.
The Sacramento Bee reporters Lambert and Stanton found pleasure to endlessly and recklessly attack Chancellor for any reason they can find and I don’t know if anybody on this forum has noticed that other mass media don’t jump on SacBee wagon in attacks aimed at Chancellor. Some are only repeating the information from SacBee.
Katehi did not raise $1 billion dollars. Half of that money was raised before she was hired.
Al_Top .
My source of information about the 1 billion is the May 26, 2016 Chancellor Katehi’s legal counsel Melinda Guzman’s letter sent to UC General Counsel Charles Robinson. Melinda Guzman would not provide such information to the Sacramento Bee if information was false . The Bee and UCOP would be all over Chancellor and her counsel Melinda Guzman if she lied. What is your source of information about ? If you are dealing with legal matters you don’t provide false and misleading information which could be easily verified . Especially in case where termination of Chancellor is a stake .
It is false. Just do some Googling yourself.
Al_Top
Google is not the source of information in this matter. This is the strictly legal matter at this point and false in Google information will not fly .
The info is on ucdavis.edu. It is very easy to find.
“As these initiatives were advancing, Chancellor Katehi’s leadership team closed in on another crucial goal for the university, this one a full year ahead of schedule: raising $1.13 billion for student scholarships, programs, facilities and other academic support from 110,000 individual donors. The success of the university’s first-ever comprehensive Campaign for UC Davis has been vital to the campus’ continuing progress in the face of declining state investments in higher education. ” http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/about/
“One full year ahead of schedule” means they are taking about the fundraising campaign that started in 2006, three years before she was hired.
AI_Top
Why don’t you provide some direct information and link so that we don’t base our discussions on ambiguity?
“The technology is changing so quickly and it is require a lot of money not to fall behind in technological advancement and not to became a second class citizen in the world of higher education. “
What I would like to know is why, with the technology changing so rapidly, does it take a site visit to learn about one aspect of that technology ? To save money within Kaiser, we have cut back on our off site visits since this detracts from the number of patients that we can care for. Access to Webinars and other forms of electronic communication allow us to update our own processes and practices without flying to far flung luxury spots to do so. When an actual hands on skill is being taught, travel will be involved. But I strongly doubt since these are digital processes in which she wishes UCD to excel, that the information could not have been obtained…..gee….maybe digitally ?
Ms. Tia
Kaiser sucks and what the Kaiser has to do with Chancellor Katehi.
Ms. Tia. You sometimes amaze me with you logic which has no logic.
You are correct. Kaiser has nothing to do with the Chancellor. But if you cannot see that if electronic communications are adequate for transmissions of many highly technical purposes including perhaps setting up a “digital accelerator” then you are failing to understand the power of digital communications. Perhaps the Chancellor also did not see this possibility.
Jerry, like I’ve stated before, it’s a witch hunt. The detractors are throwing everything against the wall seeing what might stick.
Ms. Tia
You confused me with your statement . I understand power of new technology. Are you saying that Chancellor did not understand power of digital communication.? Could elaborate a little more about please . My understanding is that Chancellor was looking for the best top on line digital communication technology to bring more money to university ? What is your understanding ?
Ms. Barak
Chancellor is an exceptional person and human being in her achievement an what she and her family experiencing today is a witch hunt and terror beyond the human decency . This is so sad that it is happening under the name of the University of California .
Tia
It seems pretty clear to me that the technology the staff members are try to learn about is on more effectively using social media whereas the technologies for enabling teleconferencing are those related to real-time digital transmission of videos and voices. They are two completely different categories.
Even with modern digital communication technologies, teleconferencing serves a mere role of reducing cost when possible. If teleconferencing is that convenient as you are implying, then most companies/organizations would have already abandoned offices and conference rooms and everyone would be working from home. We know we are not there yet and I think you know that very well too. You are simply distorting the facts to suit your argument which I find lacks logic.
David
I distorted nothing at all. I have learned many skills through “virtual” teaching media. Just because we have not gone completely digital does not mean that we cannot be moving steadily in that less expensive and less time consuming direction. Surely it is the role of the Chancellor to move us forward beyond the old way of information acquisition which was for those at the top, and their immediate subordinates to take expensive and luxurious trips, with the tabs picked up by the company, on supposed educational trips. If you can provide me with one concrete example of why the information that had to be gathered “on site” could not have been achieved through the visit to Nestle and the rest obtained through digital means, I will be happy to re consider this issue. Until then, I see it as an egregious waste of $17,000 dollars. True, this is not a fortune in terms of the university budget, but if this is representative of her judgment then I do not see it as a point in her favor.
Tia
Let me explain to you and the others on this forum how you distorted facts.
I think everyone knows that while teleconferencing technologies are great, they are not nearly sufficient yet to replace face-to-face interactions. The fact that you learn “many skills through “virtual” teaching media” doesn’t mean that you can learn everything remotely. My kids learn all sorts of useful stuff on Youtube yet they still have to go to school. If teleconferencing technologies are so wonderful, why do we still have physical offices?
You know this perfectly well (I would hate to believe otherwise because it would cast serious doubts on your intellectual level) yet you choose to bend the fact and started rambling about how they should avoid an actual trip. You don’t even know what they learned and what exactly they did on that trip. Why jumping to your conclusion so hastily?
This is why I’m calling you out for “distorting” and “bending” facts for the sake of winning an argument. It’s a common technique of sophistry and it doesn’t really add anything meaningful to the discussion.
There are numerous other examples like this in your posts. I can almost pick on every sentence because they are so full of logic fallacies, but it’s quite meaningless to do so.
the Sac Bee makes millions, if not billions, off the UC establishment, the Gov Brown, the legislators.
they don’t care about any facts and real issues, they know who butters their bread..
screw the Bee and the other media….
if you listen to the mainstream media, you deserve what you get….
and, waste too many hours on sites like this where the other folks who have a little life show up for hours, days, weeks, months……
cya
the Chancellor’s work to improve the UCD image HAS brought tons of funds to UCD>….
and it is efforts of this nature that work …… harvard and other high level universities have known that for decades..
and the [edited] on this board, the [edited] protestors on the 5th floor, and so forth who are the ones who are creating this mess….day in and day out…
it is the Gov Brown, the Napo, newer and dumber regents….so forth…those with their pockets greased by the UAW and so forth….. that create the issues.
the Chancellor was not responsible for the spray incident and that was over five years ago..
the union contracts with UC are expiring….they are the instigators in so much of what started a few short weeks ago…
get a clue someone …anyone…..the issues are way bigger and the sides are being drawn and it is a fight now…
as I said in my first post on this topic at the tail end of April……..
“those with their pockets greased ….”
So you have no problem with the Chancellor having her pockets greased by DeVry without obtaining prior permission as required by her own statement ?
Could you cite how much she has made on that board position?
DavidSmith
I believe that the number made public was $75,000 and an undisclosed amount in stock. However, it is not the absolute quantity of the compensation that is troublesome to me. It is the fact that she chose to accept this for her personal benefit when she could have chosen initially to do what she ultimately did for appearance sake which was to fund student education with this additional compensation which came to her solely because of her university leadership position.
I honestly do not care if keeping these additional monies is common practice or not. I do not care if all of the other Chancellor’s do it. The possibility for real leadership in the form of donation of these funds directly to student education was available, and Ms. Katehi did not choose that route voluntarily, but only under duress.To me, this is not an exemplification of true leadership which should always be about what is best for your institution, not just yourself.
Well you are calling again for her to share wealth. The same questions to you again then. Why don’t you share your wealth with those who couldn’t afford their medical bills? Why don’t you share your wealth with those starving and suffering in other parts of the world?
I think this summarizes your stance pretty well. You don’t care. Many of us are infuriated by the singling out of our Chancellor by SacBee and the UCOP. I consider it nothing less than gender discrimination. Yet you don’t care.
Once again, in my opinion, the Chancellor has worked tireless to improve UCD’s status quo. Having her stay as the Chancellor would truly beneficial to UCD (before the UCOP nonsense broke out).
Someone commented to me recently that Nicholas Dirks must be thrilled to see the UC president’s attention diverted to Chancellor Katehi instead of him. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/UC-Berkeley-chancellor-faces-skeptical-Academic-7391798.php
Don Shor
I tend to agree with you. Napolitano picked on our Chancellor because UCD is a weak campus in the UC system. Napolitano couldn’t touch Berkeley so she chose to wield her power against Davis. What makes me angry is that she did this without considering the well being of the Davis campus and it seems that she’s doing it just to divert the pressure on UCOP on a number of issues (sex harassment scandal at Berkeley, and a call to examine external board positions of all top UC executives, and UC’s polices on that)
And I don’t need to remind everyone here that during the 2011 occupy movement, the UC Berkeley police actually beat the students with batons, which in my opinion makes the UCD police look benign. Do you see their Chancellor taking as much heat as our Chancellor?
DavidSmith… you (and Jerry and others) make pretty compelling arguments that the Chancellor was working within ‘acceptable bounds’, compared to others in the UC system.
Thank you all for that…
Time to flush the toilet… professors ‘contributing’ to textbooks, then made by them as “required”, often costing $100 a pop (even in the 70’s), and then reaping ‘royalties’… if Jerry’s list is true, suggest a highly efficient toilet to flush all the abuses down, across the board… and, if the Chancellor is even the least offensive ‘crap’, the toilet still needs to be flushed…
hpierce
We can start a new thread on expensive textbooks. I share your concern and in fact when I teach, I intentionally use a much older version (and therefore much less expensive) of the textbook. The textbook is still required because most students can’t learn the materials effectively without a textbook.
Why are textbooks so expensive? My simple answer is that the publishers and the distributors took all the profits. If I write a textbook that sells for $100 a copy, I will perhaps make $1-2 for each copy that sells. You don’t ever make a fortune by writing a textbook.
“the Sac Bee makes millions, if not billions, off the UC establishment, the Gov Brown, the legislators.”
If this were true McClatchy wouldn’t be in such a financial mess. Its total value is only $130 million and its assets include: The Miami Herald, The Sacramento Bee, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Kansas City Star, The Charlotte Observer and The Raleigh News and Observer.
I wonder do you believe what you write or do you simply make it up as you go along?