It started late on Tuesday as Colin Walsh, who is wearing a number of overlapping hats this election cycle, on Facebook posted a screen shot of a Yes on J sponsored article. The sponsored article was from the Vanguard – the press release of ASUCD endorsing a Yes on Nishi position.
One of the listed contacts on that press release was ASUCD Senator Alisha Hacker. But Mr. Walsh wrote: “Does anyone else think it is interesting that the student featured in the yes on J ad is involved in an ASUCD election scandal? Including a possible recall of the ASUCD president?”
The link goes to an Aggie article where there is an allegation of voter fraud, accusing “President Michael Gofman, Vice President Shaniah Branson and Unite members of violating ASUCD Bylaws 406(a)(c) and 406(A)(a)(i).” Ms. Hacker is only mentioned once and only because she happened to be on the “Unite slate.” The Vanguard was informed that while anyone can be recalled for any reason, an investigation cleared them of any allegations of voter fraud.
And yet Colin Walsh attempted to smear the Yes on J campaign with the taint of some scandal that had nothing to do with them.
But that wasn’t the end of the controversy. On the No on Nishi – Measure J page, a local resident, Melissa Hayes, posted: “I just saw a Yes on J college-age student in daisy dukes going door to door in my neighborhood with fliers. So the Yes on J developers are pimps too. Noted.”
Colin Walsh, instead of removing the content or criticizing it, doubled down: “[I] would not want to engage in slut shaming, But I saw someone dressed like that last week. I wonder if it is a strategy they are trying to use.”
This ignited the controversy, as Aaron Latta would respond: “No on Nishi – Davis Measure J organizer Colin Walsh slut shames a female student merely for having differences in their political views and has made defamatory statements about ASUCD Senator Alisha Hacker. Bigotry and dishonesty cannot become politics as usual in Davis.”
Under fire, Mr. Walsh would post: “Pure personal attacks. Look at the posting, read the Aggie article and decide for your self.” Later, he would add, “To be clear, I speak for myself and I am not acting as a spokesperson for any campaign.”
In protest, students went down to council chambers on Wednesday to speak on the Davis Live housing proposal. Some of them wore “Daisy Dukes” and “high heels” in protest.
Maiya De La Rosa would post, “Colin Walsh has gone too far as to personally subject Senator Hacker to public criticism based on the fact that they have a difference on this one issue. She had devoted an immense amount of time and effort to her position. She is beyond devoted to the work she does with the organization she is involved with. It is already hard enough being a woman in politics, but to have males try to discredit the work that women do is despicable because they believe their opinion is superior.”
Outside of community chambers, she told the Vanguard, “A group of us noticed that one of our members had been personally outed by the No on Nishi campaign.” She said, “It further escalated into a community member essentially slut-shaming one of our female members as they were trying to engage civically like a normal citizen, just trying to do their part in the community. Another community member went on to affirm that (was) the same community member that is working on the No on Nishi campaign.
“It is unacceptable for community members to view women in that way,” Ms. De La Rosa stated, “to say what we choose to wear on our bodies is a political choice and a political tactic. It is unacceptable. The community member never apologized.
“In no way, shape or form is it okay to slut shame,” she said. She explained that they decided to wear heels and dress “more sophisticated.”
Alex Meyer explained that the Aggie article was mainly concerned with the ASUCD President, but it did mentioned one of the senators. She explained, “This community member attempted to try and mischaracterize this particular senator because she was on the same (slate) as the president.”
She said, “He did this as a way to insinuate that she was involved in an election scandal – which really she wasn’t, that somehow because she was also supporting Measure J made her a less trustworthy person.
“He was clearly trying to advance an agenda because he doesn’t support Measure J,” Ms. Meyer stated. “I told him that as an adult you should take responsibility for mischaracterizing someone intentionally. And not be upset about the fact that people are addressing that intentionally, but instead he chose to victimize himself and acted very unprofessionally.”
The Vanguard spoke with ASUCD Senator Alisha Hacker, who explained that she woke up to a text informing her that Colin Walsh was going after her personally. She said, “Once I read further I realized how out of context this was and how irrelevant this was to the overall conversation of Measure J.”
She said most of that article was unsubstantiated claims that have been debunked. “To use that to malign my character and those who are supporting Measure J by bringing irrelevant information without going through the due diligence of fact-checking… I found was to weaken the article and take us out of the issue.
“I was hesitant to even respond, but I wanted to get the conversation back to why we’re here, which is housing,” she said.
The Vanguard reached out to Colin Walsh late on Wednesday. He didn’t directly respond to the controversy and instead directed the Vanguard back to an article he said was criticizing the Yes on Measure J’s tactics.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I find the tactic of smearing, making false claims, and allowing known false claims to stand unchallenged completely unacceptable. I found it unacceptable when it was directed at a fellow physician and myself during the fluoride issue. I find it unacceptable in the current DA campaign. I find it unacceptable with regard to one’s position on Nishi.
I would hope that Melissa Hayes and Colin Walsh would admit to their inappropriate tactics and apologize. If there have been similar tactics coming from the Yes on Nishi side, I would hope they would do the same.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome
Tia,
It sounds like you are attacking our Davisite way of life!!!
“I find the tactic of smearing, making false claims, and allowing known false claims to stand unchallenged completely unacceptable. “
I had a young female adult come to my door last week promoting Yes on J. She was polite and knowledgeable. She may have been wearing shorts. It was a very warm evening. I don’t remember really. I think she was wearing what a typical college student wears on campus every day. I am offended that the No on J campaign would criticize the involvement of women in politics in saying that it is part of some sort of unsavory strategy by their opponents to sway voters using sexuality. Well, this is just distasteful.
After moving to Davis my wife commented that many Davis locals that claim to be “pro choice” and support “diversity” don’t seem to like it when other women “choose” to wear makeup and add some “diversity” to a room full of Birkenstocks and Crocks by wearing high heels …
Ken
I simply do not see what the issue is with judgement based on clothing choice. For years, I wore 4″ heels to work and all but very casual events or exercise. I did it for the simple reason that I liked them and the way I felt in them. I also often went barefoot around my neighborhood because I liked the way that felt too.
Was I not the same person in heels or barefoot?
Glad to see no one trying to defend Colin. I’ve been sayin for some time he is a disgrace. You should look at what he did the College Dems over their forum in Feb or March.
Ken A doesn’t seem to get it, but that’s to be expected.
I am not clear what you are referring to, and I doubt many people reading this are. Could you explain?
Early in the campaign, the College Democrats had a forum with only Democrats invited. Agree or disagree with that, they made that decision and their bylaws prevent them from endorsing non-registered Democrats. Well Colin had a fit, he gaslighted them, blasted them on social media, He was a complete bore.
How could one defend such a statement?
I assume the author of the statement is aware that the word “But”, oddly capitalized, negates all that has come before, so that the statement may be read as “I am slut shaming the woman I saw dressed like that”.
How does one even make that leap — commenting on someone’s comment saying they saw a woman in shorts going door to door for a campaign, to mentioning the word “slut”? The only person who made that leap was the person denying they were making such a leap in the same sentence that they introduced the term into the conversation.
Does this person see women students in shorts as women by going through the tortuous thought process of: “I am not seeing sluts, I will not shame these women, as they are definitely not sluts” — ?!? Most of us simply see women students.
If you actually look at the “NoOnNishi” Facebook page, you’d likely come to a different conclusion.
https://www.facebook.com/NoOnNishiDavis/
It appears that Colin was essentially labeling another person’s comment, using a term (that’s apparently in common usage) to essentially deride it.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/leora-tanenbaum/the-truth-about-slut-shaming_b_7054162.html
Colin then goes on to state that people should be free to wear what they want, and that he would be surprised if the Yes side actually encouraged anyone to dress in a particular manner. (However, he did entertain this remote possibility, as noted in his initial comment.)
Despite this, the original commenter “stuck to her guns” (regarding her suspicions that the Yes side would engage in such tactics).
The “truth” here is that the Vanguard is continually trying to undermine the No side, perhaps because they no longer want to discuss the actual concerns.
I’m not on Facebook, because Facebook is evil, so I am relying on the fair and accurate portrayal of the issue as reported by blogs. My comment is based on what was reported here, and I withdraw it if it may be reasonably argued that the quote was taken out of context.
. . . if . . .
No you had it right the first time Alan. What Colin said was, “Not to be slut shaming” BUT “I’ll go ahead and poke at the woman’s attire anyway.” And when he got caught, he tried to backtrack, but he never took back what he initially said. Ther’s a screenshot posted here, it was in context.
Also, it appears that the series of comments occurred yesterday, so it does not appear that Colin’s subsequent comments were made in response to this Vanguard article.
The other (initial) commenter remained adamant about the possibility that the developer might engage in such tactics, and she referred to questionable tactics used in the past by the same developer (for Covell Village).
Again, one should review the entire exchange, before making any partisan-driven judgements.
His initial comment was offensive, he doubled down on the initial comment and then never apologized. He said in effect, not to slut shame, but then proceeded to slut shame and insinuate that the Yes on J campaign was using it as a tactic. Nothing he said after that matters. It was all damage control.
Craig: Your comments have already been addressed, above. (Starting with my 12:58 p.m., comment.)
You’re swallowing his dissembling. His first statement sealed the deal.
Once he said this: “But I saw someone dressed like that last week. I wonder if it is a strategy they are trying to use.”. He couldn’t undig. The “but” line validates Melissa’s comment. And the third line, suggesting it a strategy, marries him to it. He never apologizes for it. He only claims he said things he never said. He’s sunk. You can’t defend him. None of the students involved bought it. Why are you? Oh yeah, you’re a 50 or 60 something year old man. He’s talking about 18 year old girls. Shame Ron. Shame.
You’re reaching, as you’ve done before on here. Again, start with my 12:58 p.m. comment.
However, women are often used in this manner (e.g., in advertising). Turn on your TV for a day, if you doubt that.
You can’t explain away the second and third sentences with your comment. You don’t get it.
Colin only made those additional comments after we brought the issue to light yesterday, he doesn’t get to be applauded because he got caught. This is only the latest in a long line of actions by Colin against students. He has harassed the majority of the Davis College Democrats in person and online since the Nishi planning commission hearing in January. No matter ones views on Nishi a pattern has developed in Colin’s actions that only encourages comments like the one mentioned above, and it needs to be stopped.
Also seeing as Colin has twice represented Ezra Beeman it would be interesting to here Ezra’s thoughts on this issue. Does Mr. Beeman condone such vitriol like his most ardent supporter has?
It’s an old political tactic, to try to undermine the messenger (instead of the message).
Some things never change.
This is why folks don’t like politics (and by extension – publications such as the Vanguard). It just becomes an unpleasant game.
“It’s an old political tactic, to try to undermine the messenger (instead of the message).”
Seems to have done a good job of undermining himself
Ron
Oh nonsense. If what you are saying is correct, please explain to me the rationale for any comment containing the brand of shoes “daisy dukes” with the assertion of someone being a “pimp”. How would the Vanguard have used this to “undermine” had it not been there in the first place?
Daisy Dukes are cut off jeans popularized by Catherine Bach on “The Dukes of Hazzard”,
True, Anonymous R., although the “use” is (hopefully) agreed to and compensated for, even as the result may be considered comically distasteful (see Nair ad in YouTube link above for a ridiculously over-the-top 1970’s example).
The implication by a No on J activist, however (“I just saw a Yes on J college-age student in daisy dukes going door to door in my neighborhood with fliers. So the Yes on J developers are pimps too.”), as I read it, is that the developers are paying young women to go door-to-door as sex objects.
I know several students involved in this campaign, and I assure you they are doing this because they are passionate about the need for student housing in Davis. The implication that those Yes on J activists that are women are going door-to-door in shorts because they are paid to show skin is insulting.
Who does she want me to vote for?
It is funny to think that with the original “Daisy Duke” turning 65 next year she is older than many UCD students grandmothers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Bach
So . . . what?
A picture of the original Daisy Duke wearing “Daisy Dukes”, which I posted because TW humorously thought they were shoes, and a link to a really stupid Nair commercial, which I posted as Anonymous R was talking about women being “used” in commercials, are outside of the Vanguard policy guidelines HOW?
These were both shown during family hours on TV decades ago and are tame by today’s TV standards, but are too racy for the Vanguard? Does the Vanguard also consider dancing to be the movement of the Devil?
And why leave in callng Colin “Colon”. That I do believe is against Vanguard policy, but that is still up.
Really Ron? You seem to like it quite a bit. Not sure anyone else has posted more than you have on the Vanguard in recent months…
I hate it. But, I also hate to see what’s said on here, since some might accept it as truthful. Note that some are making judgements based upon this article (and comments), without even reading the Facebook page where this (non-story) originated from. And, some seem to be purposefully misinterpreting it.
Nothing more truthful than posting someone’s own words in context.
Colin’s non-response to David was probably the best response, given what occurs on here.
But, I’ll go ahead and note a portion of my 12:58 statement again, since it’s being ignored:
“It appears that Colin was essentially labeling another person’s comment, using a term (that’s apparently in common usage) to essentially deride it.”
(In other words, there doesn’t appear to be anything to “backtrack” from.)
You’re wrong Ron. He did label the other person’s comment, but then as I wrote, he doubled down by essentially agreeing with them.
David: As you’ve noted in your article, Colin did initially state that he “wondered if it’s a strategy that they are trying to use”. He then discounted that possibility.
And – you wrote an entire article, on that fact alone. But, your article went well-beyond that, and implied that Colin was derisively referring to these young women as “sluts”. And, as you’ve now acknowledged, that wasn’t the case.
That’s pretty poor journalism. If anyone owes an apology here, it’s you.
Actually most of my article was in an interview with three students who are directly affected by what Colin dI’d.
Colon apprears to be a conduit for certain folk, including being on the board of “The Flatlander”…
Is the Flatlander coming back?
I have not seen a copy in years.
https://localwiki.org/davis/The_Flatlander
Tia (to me):
You are criticizing the other commenter, not Colin. Colin briefly entertained the possibility that the developer would engage in such tactics, while simultaneously noting that such speculation could be harmful to young ladies who are (legitimately) working on the Yes side. (In other words, simultaneously pointing out the potential ramifications of such a comment.)
Might the “thought” occur to me (regarding the possibility of purposeful, developer involvement), if I were approached by a young lady in “Daisy Dukes (as the woman that you’re referrring to suggested)? Maybe. But, I would also realize that a developer would not likely take a risk, by specifically instructing young ladies to dress in a particular manner.
There are times (no doubt) that an employer will hire attractive people engage with the public, though. (Either consciously, or subconsciously). And, most of us happen to be at our most (physically) attractive, when we’re younger.
And, sorry to say, women are specifically used in this manner by those trying to sell something (willingly, or without specific acknowledgement) by society, at large.
As a side note, I didn’t notice that you initially referred to “Daisy Dukes” as a brand of shoe! (I see that Jim and Ken corrected you, on that.)
I’d suggest not watching reruns of the “Dukes of Hazzard” (the origin of “Daisy Dukes”), as it will lead to another conversation regarding the use of the Confederate flag (on the car used in that show).
(And then maybe the Vanguard and some of its supporters can find a way to blame Colin for that, as well.) 🙂
I, for one, would never blame Colin for that!
Weird tho’ thst you seem to equate the VG as pro-J, and anti-anti No on J, and those who just figure J is the best likely use of the land… very weird…
should have read “… anti No on J…”
The No on J folk must have a limited supply of rational arguments, and an unlimited supply of spaghetti and male bovine fecal matter…
The No on J folk have definitely convinced me to vote Yes on J…
Really? Questioning that is beyond weird. (So is your spelling/grammar, in this case.)
You take two days off from the Vanguard, and return with this? 🙂
I was the one that referred to Daisy Dukes as a brand of shoe, which is apparently true as Robert showed me a site that was selling shoes under this logo. I didn’t look into it any further and won’t because it is so irrelevant. I am aware of the Dukes of Hazard origin but find that also irrelevant. In my mind, the only relevance of any of this is whether we are ok with calling those of differing perspectives ” pimps” and women “sluts” because of the attire they wear whether shorts or shoes. I am not ok with this tactic and wish it would stop.
Glad that you’re up, still. I wasn’t able to post again, until late this evening.
I agree with you. But then again, Colin is not the one who said it.
It’s his page. He controls the content. More to the point, it’s a recurring pattern of behavior. I assume you know that, so I don’t know why you’re trying to defend his indefensible behavior.
Ron: What Colin said is (A) He has seen women for the J campaign dressed that way and (B) That he wondered if that was part of an intentional strategy. The other thing that you gloss over in your rush to defend him is if it had been on the Vanguard, we would have either taken the comment down or I likely would have said, that was completely inappropriate. He didn’t and instead doubled down on it. Only later did he partially attempt to walk back from those initial comments.
OK, finally able to see Facebook posts. Tired of people characterizing them; here’s the whole thread. After reading this, I am most definitely not dropping my earlier comments. Here’s the whole thread, judge for yourself, probably based on your politics because we’re all too stup*d to be objective, apparently.
Melissa Hayes I just saw a Yes on J college-age student in daisy dukes going door to door in my neighborhood with fliers. So the Yes on J developers are pimps too. Noted.
3
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2d · Edited
Colin Walsh i would not want to engage in slut shaming, But I saw someone dressed like that last week. I wonder if it is a strategy they are trying to use.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 2d
Neil Ruud I don’t know about you two, but I think people should be able to wear what they want to stay cool in this heat without your judgment.
8
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1d
Colin Walsh Neil Ruud I agree. People should be free to wear what they want.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1d · Edited
Neil Ruud Then why are you suggesting that Yes on J is sexualizing their canvassers?
8
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1d
Colin Walsh Neil Ruud I doubt that such incidental evidence is conclusive.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1d
Colin Walsh I would be bothered if they did, but I would also be surprised.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1d
D’Lana Pearce It’s incredibly inappropriate and disrespectful for you to suggest that the Yes on J developers are pimps. That is a demoralizing statement. I would hope that another woman would not slut shame people based on their decision to wear shorts while walking outside for hours on a hot spring day. While I do not work for yes on J, I do attend UCD and these are my peers you are referring to in an incredibly distasteful way. If you want to encourage people to vote No on something perhaps resort to actual reasons why instead of inaccurate claims of indecency. It makes you look childish.
8
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1d
Melissa Hayes Give it a rest D’Lanca. And, yes, I think the Yes on J folks are complete and total pimps on a variety of levels. They’re not afraid to pimp out the town and a few young ladies in the process to make a profit. And I’m not slut shaming. I’m just pointing out that it wasn’t a college-age young man with his rear end hanging out of his jeans going door to door and there’s a reason why. The developers are using college students as a ploy to fatten their wallets and the community should be outraged. Rest assured, I will call the developers out on their BS every time. Wake up, folks. On another note, there’s an excellent article in The Flatlander about Nishi.
4
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1d · Edited
Melissa Hayes This same Nishi developer tried to pass Measure X years ago allowing a huge development on Covell next to the Cannery. I was apart of the No on X campaign at the time and you would be shocked at what we faced from the developers….harassment, verbal altercations, and quasi threats. This same developer gave out free food to college students on the UCD campus to try to bribe their support. It was even featured in the Davis Enterprise as questionable behavior. Do I think there’s no low the developers wont sink to? Absolutely. They have a track record.
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
· Reply · 1d · Edited
I just love completely unrelated smear tactics ( clothing choice) over discussion of the issues. Now if only Jeff Reisig would adopt Dean Johansson’s variety of hats, he might have my vote. That’s sarcasm for any of you who do not recognize it.
Have to give kudos where deserved. A certain City Council Candidate has been brilliant in recruiting a controversial surrogate to attract the negativity so he can remain above the fray. Well played.
Now if only the DA challenger could find someone willing to attack the incumbent everyday…
Lol, well played…
Jim
“Now if only the DA challenger could find someone willing to attack the incumbent everyday…”
Not a brilliantly played post. Comments about clothing choice are not the equivalent of disagreements on policy no matter how frequently aired.
Segue | Definition of Segue by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/segue
Definition of segue. segued; segueing. intransitive verb. 1 : to proceed without pause from one musical number or theme to another. 2 : to make a transition without interruption from one activity, topic, scene, or part to another.
Good job, your comment hit a home run and so appropriate for this blog.
Regardless of the particular campaign, one thing that I look at is who is paying for it, and why. For example, is only one side paying folks to go out and canvass neighborhoods?
Aaron Latta told me yesterday that none of the college democrats are getting paid.
Not what I asked.
Strange, how the Vanguard thinks it’s entirely “appropriate” to leave this up:
Disgusting.
But aren’t you defending Colin making similar remarks?
You’re the one calling Colin out, for comments he didn’t even make. While simultaneously seeing nothing wrong with leaving up the example, above.
Not at all. I’m calling out Colin for the two comments he did make: the comment where he stated he saw someone dressed that way last week and then wondered if it was a strategy. And the comment he didn’t make which was telling Melissa that her comment was inappropriate and to knock it off.
Already addressed this, multiple times.
I wonder if anyone has scrutinized your Facebook postings, in such a manner. And, wondered why you might not have “called out” every ill-advised comment.
Or for that matter, scrutinizing the “Yes on Nishi” Facebook page, in such a manner. (However, perhaps this wouldn’t occur on there, if they’re using professional/paid staff to run it.)
Actually you have never addressed it – not directly. You’ve dodged the point of criticism every time.
“I wonder if anyone has scrutinized your Facebook postings, in such a manner. ”
All the time.
I addressed it below. Yes, Colin should not have even “wondered” about the possibility of developer shenanigans (even though the same developer was apparently involved in other shenanigans during the Covell Village campaign – as noted by Melissa’s comments, above).
And, the same developer is now responsible for putting out misleading information regarding the fiscal (and other) impacts of the current Nishi proposal.
Does that answer your question?
I noticed you didn’t answer my question, regarding whether or not only one side is paying folks to go out and canvass neighborhoods.
“I noticed you didn’t answer my question, regarding whether or not only one side is paying folks to go out and canvass neighborhoods.”
I answered what I knew.
And regarding Colin’s specific comments, this is what I noted (above). (Slight modification, for clarity.)
However, I would have to agree that Colin probably shouldn’t have even “wondered” about the possibility of developer shenanigans (as initiated by someone else), on his Facebook page. Especially during a campaign, in which every statement is carefully scrutinized for political purposes.
The point is that you don’t (blank) say it.
(blank)!