While all of the newspaper headlines presented the gleeful headline, “No Charges Against UC Davis Protests.” The subtext of that release from District Attorney Jeff Reisig is much more subdued, “DA will monitor future demonstrations.”
UC Davis announced right before Thanksgiving last week that an agreement was reached whereby the protesters would end their occupation of Mrak which was done peacefully and without incident.
On Monday, the District Attorney’s Office released the following statement from Jeff Reisig:
“Based on my discussions with Chancellor Katehi and Police Chief Spicuzza, the District Attorney’s Office will not be filing criminal charges at this time. While criminal charges may be filed for up to one year after the date of the alleged violation, it is our hope that future student demonstrations will comply with the law and eliminate any need for the District Attorney’s involvement at all.”
In a way, this is a Faustian Deal for the students at best. They hand over the leverage for publicity and hand it to the District Attorney’s Office and University, making both agencies look reasonable for their handling of the matter.
However, the simple fact of the matter is, in a lot of ways this is far worse than pressing charges. The charges have not gone away, in fact, what has happened is that now the students have these charges held over their heads for a year as they weigh possible additional actions and protests against the university.
This fact is not lost upon the students themselves. Today in the Davis Enterprise, they have an Op-Ed where they write:
“[T]he D.A. (and the university) may use these charges – and the possibility that these charges could be pressed in the next year – to discipline and regulate the behavior of these students in future protests.”
Furthermore:
“The point is that the D.A., the university administration, and the police want to appear benevolent, but they have not given up any powers of prosecution in this situation. Instead, faced with the public relations disaster of having increased students’ fees by a stunning 32 percent and then having students arrested for voicing their displeasure at the increase, the administration engages in tactics designed to create the illusion of leniency while curtailing future demonstrations.”
This point is clear even as the students then become a bit overly dramatic in their analogies and historical references.
“Just as the university pretends to dialogue with students while mobilizing police to arrest them, it pursues the Janus-faced policy of, on the one hand, sending patronizing e-mails congratulating us for our activism while, on the other hand, actively working to depoliticize the student body by placing the Mrak 51 in legal limbo and even making the outrageous claim that future actions by any students might have legal consequences for the Mrak 51.
It is our view that, if any of these students were to be cited or charged again under such circumstances, this would amount to a politically motivated prosecution.
We reject the university’s attempt to create a legal Sword of Damocles with which to intimidate potential activists. We encourage students to engage in all forms of nonviolent protest, including acts of civil disobedience.”
There is of course a simple to answer to this, the students could simply request the university ask the District Attorney to press charges. However, at this point, that would be a public relations disaster as well. One needs to look no further to the public relations debacle that occurred when the University pursued charges against the Food Service Workers Demonstrators back in 2007. That action put the University on the defensive and ultimately led to the favorable settlement for the workers. However, the University has apparently learned from their past errors and have gone out of their way here to appear reasonable and fair.
The students attempt to redirect the discussion back to the issue at hand.
“We reject calls to redirect efforts toward Sacramento at this time. While the state budget crisis is real, it pales in comparison to the mismanagement of funds by the UC administration, whose ranks and salaries have exploded over the last decade, in a growth fueled largely by student debt.
We are not simply demanding that the recent 32 percent fee increase be rescinded; we demand a return to the 1960 California Master Plan for Higher Education, which stipulates that public colleges and universities be tuition-free for qualified state residents. This implies a shift of priorities, away from capital construction projects, top-heavy administration and ‘branding,’ and back to the university’s core educational mission.”
And that is the true issue at hand, the mission of the university and its being undermined by the increase in the cost of tuition and the various furloughs and cutbacks.
While it may be an easy target to criticize the students here, remember both the University and District Attorney’s Offices rely on professionals for their publicity and communications, whereas the students are simply that, students. They have a worthy cause that the public should pay close attention to.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
While laudable, the idea of a tuition free college education is not realistically sustainable, expecially in the current economic climate. I would posit the notion that it was never a realistic concept. Note the article in the Davis Enterprise today, that shows CA students have one of the lowest college debt loads in the country.
However, also notice the stricter scrutiny of how UC is spending money. Take the employee who was audited at CSU, and found to have been over-reimbursed to the tune of $150,000 – and is now working for the UC system. And naturally UC is defending this recent hire. This is the sort of thing that infuriates students and taxpayers alike.
I would also add that civil disobedience can have serious repercussions. Many of those who demonstrated during the Viet Nam War were barred from obtaining gov’t jobs w security clearances. Students need to think carefully before engaging in demonstrations that defy the law, because it can have far-reaching consequences. Sometimes “discretion is the better part of valour”…
I understand there were protests on all of the UC campuses and about 100 students were arrested. More than half of the arrests were at UC Davis – why was that? UC Santa Cruz had a bigger protest than UC Davis yet nobody was arrested and charged with anything. None of the DA’s filed charges anywhere. So why were there so many arrests at Davis and why is anybody trying to take credit for not filing charges?
Alphonso: great questions. This sounds like a good story for the Vanguard to pursue.