However, as bad as the report is, that is not our concern in Davis. Our concern is with the status and implications of incoming Chancellor Linda Katehi. And from our perspective it appears that Chancellor Katehi comes out unscathed. The report directly names nine people who either knew or should have known of the admission of substandard clouted applicants at the time of those decisions, Katehi is not only not mentioned on that list but her name does not appear at all in the report.
The (commission) has produced a thorough and responsive report that I believe will help restore the public’s trust in the University of Illinois’ admissions process. I was particularly pleased to see its reference to the University of California as one of the few universities that have in place a clear policy prohibiting undue influence in admissions.
As chancellor at UC Davis, I look forward to supporting the dedicated Student Affairs staff in their efforts to enroll students of accomplishment and promise in ways consistent with the values and policies of the University of California.
I share those values, respect those policies and appreciate that the commission’s work will not only spur meaningful reforms at the University of Illinois but, in the process, may encourage a broader dialogue among universities about best practices for enhancing the fairness and openness of admissions decisions.
And while I believe she should have been more forthcoming from the start and could have avoided much of this public scrutiny, it is clearly time to move on and welcome the new chancellor who begins her work at UC Davis on August 17.
The initial statement that was issued by Chancellor Katehi when the scandal broke indicated:
I want to be clear to you and others at UC Davis that I was not involved in the admissions decisions that were the subject of the Tribune’s “Clout Goes to College” investigation. Because of the governmental relations aspect and the involvement of University of Illinois System trustees, the so-called “Category I” admissions process was not part of the regular admissions system and was handled at a higher level in the institution.
This statement became less believable over time as first the fact that her direct-line subordinate was shown directing admittance to students and then a linkage to an influential Greek donor was revealed in early July. In fact, we still do not know the role that she played in this.
“Internal campus documents released this week show Giannoulias’ adviser Endy Zemenides sent information about the student to U. of I. Provost Linda Katehi in February 2008. He e-mailed from his law office, but copied his “Alexi for Illinois” campaign address on the exchange.”
Katehi then directly sent the information to the vice provost and appears to direct him to help by stating who the email originated from.
“Katehi, who was born in Greece, then forwarded the information to her vice provost.
Endy Zemenedis [sic] is the campaign manager for the State Treasurer,” she wrote. “This is the application of the daughter of a fairly prominent Greek family in Chicago.”
After Katehi’s inquiry, admissions officers decided that they would admit the student in the spring, regardless of whether there was any wait-list movement at the Urbana-Champaign campus. Not every student on the wait list that year was accepted.”
According to the Tribune, Katehi called her actions appropriate and suggested the reference to Zemenides’ position were “not meant to carry any extra weight.”
“It is absolutely appropriate for me to pass along such a status inquiry,” she said in a statement. “I mentioned Mr. Zemenides’ title, simply because that was how I knew him.”
Pressed by the Sacramento Bee about the exchanges, she claimed she was completely out of the loop.
Clearly she was not a central player in this scandal, perhaps we would not expect her to appear in the report, should she have known? We will likely never know the answer to this and at this point, it is time to move on.
It is interesting to note that one commenter on the Chicago Tribune article lamented the loss of world class talent.
They write:
“It’s a pity that this is the only leadership failure and corrupt practice that will be investigated. The university is known for having faculty and staff that that are among the best, but that are managed and directed by a stunningly inept and corrupt “old boys” network that keeps the university from reaching its potential as a world class institution. There is a consistent loss of world class talent, among them Nancy Cantor and Linda Katehi, who cannot overcome the entrenched inertia and inbreeding. Because of this, the university, its students and the taxpayers are given less than they are entitled to.”
Meanwhile, UC Davis has much more pressing issues as we discovered on Thursday, UC Davis faces a $114 million cut, a fraction of the grand total of the $1.5 billion that UC must cut system wide. Much of that has already been cut through academic and administrative cuts along with an increase to student fees and employee furlough days.
The remaining cuts are likely to felt in the classroom as there will be fewer lecturers, which means fewer classes, less class availability, and larger class sizes.
Chancellor Katehi has been lauded for her world class intellect and scholarship, she has braved a rough course to get here, and now she must brave the rough waters of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We wish her the best and can only hope she is as good as many say she is.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
. . . it is clearly time to move on . . .
Agreed, and a decent column if that’s where you had stopped.
If Chancellor Katehi is not even named in the report and yet her name appeared in emails then it shows that the report was not thorough enough.
If the investigation was thorough then it would have mentioned her name as being included in the emails but not one of the parties who knew about the admission. Which in reality I don’t understand how she could have been included in the emails and not known about the admission. It makes one wonder who is doing favors for now UCD Chancellor Katehi? Or, is she playing dumb and hoping that this issue will just go away?
Thank you Chancellor Katehi for tainting our UCD.
It’s time to move on. What’s done is done, and I’m looking forward to her coming to UCD with a clean slate, in my opinion.
[quote]It’s time to move on. What’s done is done, and I’m looking forward to her coming to UCD with a clean slate, in my opinion.[/quote] I second that emotion.
It is time to move on. I wish your article had really moved on, but it didn’t. You repeated the charges against her, implied the report was inadequate, and continued to raise doubts.
If you are ready to move on, you should say so. If you aren’t, you should say so. This article seemed intellectually dishonest.
[i]This article seemed intellectually dishonest.[/i]
I think that there is dishonesty in this story, but I don’t think that it is mainly coming from David. He’s trying to come to terms with a contradiction: On the one hand, people who he respects such as Leland Yee and AFSCME leaders seem to be deeply suspicious of Linda Katehi. On the other hand, a crucial investigation in Illinois flatly ignored their suspicions. If it was important, why didn’t Yee talk to the investigation in Illinois?
The simplest explanation is that Leland Yee is the one with a shortage of honesty. And I don’t see that his accusations against Katehi in particular are even sincere. Yee has an extremely close relationship with certain unions such as AFSCME. This has been a joint project to win Yee some publicity, and to weaken UC management in union negotiations.
It should also be considered that Yee is the one who ran away from a shoplifting indictment in Hawaii. Yee’s Wikipedia page also says that someone using California State Senate IP numbers removed the shoplifting story from that page, and also an unflattering account of Yee’s legislative actions over video game content. I personally don’t care much what Yee did with a bottle of suntan lotion in Hawaii 15 years ago. What is bad is that he might have learned entirely the wrong lesson from his own problems. He might have learned that politics in general is all about scandals.
I am not for moving on, but take a wait and see attitude. In my mind, the investigation was not thorough enough, and clearly ignored evidence of Katehi’s malfeasance, for whatever reason. These types of investigations often do not capture every guilty party.
Having said that, I want to guage how Katehi operates here. Hopefully she has learned her lesson, will not engage in such practices again. But somehow I have my doubts.
By the way, did anyone see the article in the Davis Enterprise about raises for 2 dozen top execs at UCD? Was it ever thus… maybe Yee has a point about the arrogance of the UCD regents?
Look, it’s quacking like a duck, and it’s quacked like one for months. I don’t believe a word from Illinois officials exonerating anyone on corruption charges of any kind. It still reeks, and if she cares what the public thinks, she’s got her work cut out for her. Frankly, she might fit in fine with our arrogant UC administration, who either have no clue about reality, as she claimed in her case, or could care less about what the public thinks, as the regents clearly do.
Sherrill Futrell, UC Berkeley 1964
“By the way, did anyone see the article in the Davis Enterprise about raises for 2 dozen top execs at UCD? Was it ever thus… maybe Yee has a point about the arrogance of the UCD regents?”
I missed it. When did the article appear?
Today’s paper – Sunday. UC’s reasoning is that with an executive leaving and not being replaced, the people who will pick up additional duties and responsibilities deserve a raise in pay. These are people who are making $250K – $500K a year already. I can tell you that this is not happening for the rank and file employees who are picking up additional duties as people are laid off or retire without being replaced, and are being furloughed (they are being asked to do the same job and more, in less time, at lower pay.) This is after UC President Yudof sent out a message about “shared sacrifice.” What bull!
I hope this backfires big time! This news creates such a sense of outrage and despair! When is it going to end?
Found it. Front page, above the fold. Can’t believe I missed it! Thanks for pointing it out.
I agree. This just looks bad.
By taking the raises, they lose the ability to say they are setting an example for others during hard times. And setting an example is simply a basic strategy of leadership.
I do not like the recent executive pay increases given at a time when most university faculty pay is being cut by 10 to 15%, and depending on the April PERS adjustment given to UCD employees. Nor have I ever liked the proliferation of high-paid administrative position. I don’t know anyone who does. I have criticized many unilateral land use decisions made by the University. I do not like the way Larry Vanderhoef treated the food service workers.
But the attack on Katehi seems like a witch hunt to me, and I am appalled by Leland Yee’s attack on the University during this period when the University is at its most vulnerable. Why not whip up a little more public anger and transfer even more of the state’s funds from the University to the prison system? Why not hand out more 378 year sentences for a crime that did not result in death (let alone perhaps less than conclusive evidence?), as David courageously commented on today, and pay far more to keep such people imprisoned for life than it costs to give a low-income student a university education?
The excellence of University of California is perhaps the state’s most important asset. The current underfunding could permanently destroy the greatest public University in the world. It took 150 years to build up this institution. It will take far, far less time to destroy it. I want to give the new chancellor our full support, because these are such perilous times for the University.
No one should be permanently immune from criticism, but let’s truly move on, give Linda Katehi a chance to do a great job.
And what of your gratuitous shot at David a few days after you admonished him from doing the same at you?
“No one should be permanently immune from criticism, but let’s truly move on, give Linda Katehi a chance to do a great job.”
If how Katehi operated at UI is any example, I have doubts that her behavior at UCD will be pristine clean. Let’s wait and see, but we should never forget. A “casual mention” of a parent’s title, heritage, and business position to grease the wheels for a less than qualified students is not what I would consider ethical. Perhaps my standards are too high for some, but the world would be a better place if everyone adhered to more ethical behavior. I know I would have been infuriated if my child was kept from the college of his/her choice, bc some less qualified student w a wealthy parent was accepted instead.
[quote]Perhaps my standards are too high for some, but the world would be a better place if everyone adhered to more ethical behavior. [/quote]If you had high standards, you would not question someone else’s standards behind a pseudonym. Also, your characterization of her action — “to grease the wheels” — is a complete falsehood.
[i]A “casual mention” of a parent’s title, heritage, and business position to grease the wheels for a less than qualified students is not what I would consider ethical.[/i]
Except for the facts, I agree with you. All that is in the e-mails is an actual casual mention or two, and not a “casual mention” with scare quotes. There is no serious evidence that Katehi greased anyone’s wheel, nor that she knew that that applicant was in any special category, nor that that particular applicant was unqualified. Many of the applicants in this “Category I” that were admitted would have been admitted anyway. There no particular evidence that Katehi knew otherwise about this candidate or about any candidate.
Maybe to keep a cynical discussion going, some people talk as if this scandal was of the “wink wink nudge nudge” variety, in which everyone speaks in euphemisms and no one has clean hands. It wasn’t. When Richard Herman asked UIUC to admit unqualified applicants, the admissions offices were completely blunt that the applicants weren’t qualified. Herman was equally blunt that they should get in anyway. It was obvious.
So the reason that Illinois Admissions Commission wasn’t interested in Katehi is that they were interested in blatant actions. They weren’t interested in reading hints into e-mails. They had plenty to investigate even if they gave everyone the benefit of the doubt, not just Katehi but also the people who were the deeply involved. That may be why the muckrakers in California never connected with the commission in Illinois. The muckrakers wanted to know, “What can we use here to confront Katehi?” Whereas the commission’s approach was, “Let’s be as adult and fair as possible and only accuse people when we need to accuse them.”
We can’t ignore the facts. It’s a good thing David is covering this important issue and it’s a good thing that Senator Yee has the courage to speak up.
I find it hypocritical what some are saying such as “let’s move on.” All the while saying “The excellence of University of California is perhaps the state’s most important asset.”
Yes, the UC system is destined to fall apart if the UC system continues to pay every new chancellor tens of thousands more than the previous chancellor while increasing student fees AND decreasing faculty pay and benefits; therefore, not being able to recruit or maintain faculty.
KUDOS TO SENATOR YEE AND TO THE VANGUARD FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH!!! We the taxpayers are outraged. As an alumnus of the UC system I am further outraged that UCD is bringing in a chancellor who is starting out her career at UCD on a very negative note. We could have done much better.
I agree with a previous person who said, “Thank you Chancellor Katehi for tainting our UCD.”
I believe that this dead horse is getting tired of being beaten.
If you had high standards, you would not question someone else’s standards behind a pseudonym.”
Yes I would, if I worked for UCD!
“Also, your characterization of her action — “to grease the wheels” — is a complete falsehood.”
IMHO, casually mentioning the name, social status, political connections, etc. of an applicant’s family is “greasing the wheels” for admissions. It is using the family’s wealth and social status to ease their way into UI, which might ordinarily not have happened otherwise. It is not a direct payment, but may as well have been. I will bet my bottom dollar, pardon the pun, that the Greek family will make a generous donation to the UI alumni fund! There is more than one way to “grease the wheels”.
“So the reason that Illinois Admissions Commission wasn’t interested in Katehi is that they were interested in blatant actions. They weren’t interested in reading hints into e-mails. They had plenty to investigate even if they gave everyone the benefit of the doubt, not just Katehi but also the people who were the deeply involved. That may be why the muckrakers in California never connected with the commission in Illinois. The muckrakers wanted to know, “What can we use here to confront Katehi?” Whereas the commission’s approach was, “Let’s be as adult and fair as possible and only accuse people when we need to accuse them.”
They were only interested in what they could easily prosecute. That does not mean Katehi’s behavior was ethical, by any stretch of the imagination. Give Katehi credit for being more clever than the ones that acually got “caught”, but not for being ethical. Ethical she isn’t!