In a statement to the Vanguard, a spokesperson for the university acknowledged that a police matter was probably not handled properly and they vowed to do better in the future.
Students and civil rights groups have been concerned since the discovery of documents showing hundreds of documents regarding the UC administration’s response to student activism.
According to a release from a student group, “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.”
One of the big issues is the handling by a plainclothes UC Davis police officer of a protest that moved to the Chancellor’s home.
Eric Lee, one of the organizers of the event earlier this week, expressed concern about the actions of Officer Johanna Zaconi. Officer Johanna Zaconi allegedly disguised herself as a “‘protester” when she introduced herself as part of the UC Davis Biological Department in March. And then she denied being a police officer when confronted by student protesters.
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.
However, the police in the recent incident became aware of the protesters leaving campus and going to the Chancellor’s residence.
He said, “They, without contacting us, chose to send a plain-clothed officer there and when confronted about who she was and why she was there, she lied. Her lie was the catalyst that, in my opinion, created this level of mistrust between some of the students and staff/administration.”
He added, “That is totally understandable as it is very hard for anyone to trust someone who has lied to you.”
He believes that their group has taken a large portion of the blame and is now falsely being associated with the police.
“We are certainly not trying to infiltrate the protests,” Mr. Austin added. “Our members usually wear their name badges and are open about who they are and why they are there.”
University Spokesperson Claudia Morain denies that there was an undercover officer and that this was an infiltration. She told the Vanguard yesterday, “The officer was in plain clothes and part of the police presence to ensure public safety.”
However, she did acknowledge that this was not handled as well as it should have been.
“This clearly has caused concern among some students and members of the community, and we can do better in the future,” Ms. Morain told the Vanguard. “Officers are going to identify themselves from now on, and they’ll either be in uniform or have a badge on their belts.”
A key question is the role of the Student Activist Team and whether it is being misconstrued, as the university and members of the team claim.
The Vanguard was sent the protocol of the Student Activism Team (SAT). It reads, “UC Davis student activism is recognized as a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and an important learning opportunity.”
It continues, “The primary role of the Division of Student Affairs in responding to student activism is to support freedom of expression, promote student safety, educate the campus on free speech policy and assist in preventing disruption of normal campus activities through education and implementation of time, place and manner regulations. Student Affairs staff members communicate with students to identify issues of concern and make campus administration aware of those concerns and potential activity.”
The Vanguard has received but has not had a chance to evaluate the vast amount of documents that were produced as the result of a Public Records request.
The Vanguard did speak to Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Life in Student Affairs, Griselda Castro.
The Vice Chancellor believes that the purpose of the SAT “has been misconstrued” in how it has 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.”
Because of the extensive protests last year centering around fees, education, and other issues, they had to expand their staff a bit to have additional volunteers. She argued that her staff was well-versed on these issues, but the volunteers had to receive additional training.
“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 a facilitator 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.”
Vice Chancellor Castro told the Vanguard that their group was not communicating with the police in the case involving the undercover police officer.
It was a relatively small group, but they did go to the Chancellor’s house.
“Whenever they leave the area of protest, lots of people call the police,” she said. “It is better for them [the police] to hear from us, don’t worry it seems okay, we’ve got it. We would rather have a presence with the students rather [sic] than always have it be police.”
“If student affairs were not there, then people would just call the police,” she explained. “Then it would just be between the students and the police. We try to provide support if we’re there, it minimizes the need for that.”
She was adamant that no one has been processed through judicial affairs. “We are very clear in our training they’re not there to take names. We don’t take names of students. We’re not spying on them. We don’t turn their names into financial aid.”
She referenced quotes from the news yesterday where students were concerned that people working in financial aid and other such offices were also involved in monitoring protests.
“That’s not the case,” she said. “We have made clear that we’re not there to spot out individuals. There is no connection between who is involved and any of their university business.”
The Vanguard will continue to look into this matter and examine the public records requests.
However, the students feel differently, and the involvement of the police is concerning to many of them who feel that their rights are being violated.
Moreover, many question whether this is the sort of undertaking the administration should be taking. It certainly does not seem a good way to build trust between the students and the university to have staff members infiltrating and attempting to direct students’ activities.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “However, the students feel differently, and the involvement of the police is concerning to many of them who feel that their rights are being violated.”
What rights would those be that have been supposedly violated?
dmg: “Moreover, many question whether this is the sort of undertaking the administration should be taking. It certainly does not seem a good way to build trust between the students and the university to have staff members infiltrating and attempting to direct students’ activities.”
Many question whether students going out onto I-80, pulling fire alarms, disrupting students in the library, distrupting Unitrans, or disturbing the Chancellor’s house is the sort of undertaking students should be taking. It certainly does not seem a good way to build trust between students and the university/community to have students engaging in such unlawful activity that endangers the public safety and disrupts University operations.
When I attended U of MD during the Viet Nam War riots, students were allowed to get out of hand. Very quickly students stopped traffic on the main thoroughfare running through U of MD, then upturned cars and set them on fire. The Nat’l Guard had to be called out, so martial law was declared on campus for everyone’s safety. Students cannot be allowed to do anything they want, just bc they have a “righteous cause”. The end does not justify the means.
Furthermore, I find the moral relativism that is going on here ridiculous. The University is trying to take steps to ensure the safety of ALL STUDENTS. The students who protested, however, were milling around and deciding whether to go out onto I-80, pulled fire alarms, disrupted Unitrans traffic, disrupted the Library while students were trying to study for exams, etc. When a small group of students decide they have the “right” to endanger public safety and disrupt normal University operations, they clash with the rights of the public and other students to be safe and free to carry on normal daily activity. At that point, it is perfectly appropriate for the University to put systems in place to ensure normal operations and public safety.
If the students don’t want the University to engage in this sort of “policing” activity, the students need to make sure they obey the law. Then there would be no need for the University to take such “policing” actions. Students need to understand there are consequences for illegal behavior in the real world. Had the students been allowed onto I-80, there is a very good chance someone could have been hurt/killed, and not necessarily a student.
For those who agree w the students, that they have a “right” to civil disobedience, where do you draw the line? When someone is killed, or does that even matter to you? Is “freedom of speech” so important that it trumps public safety? I think not – yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is deemed inappropriate speech. Time, place and manner restrictions are deemed perfectly appropriate. Had the students adhered to that, there would have been no need for the University to do what it did. The students have only themselves to blame for this.
I think David is trying to stir it up but as you can see by the number of posts to his last two articles about this that it’s a non-issue.
Well the last article was not a fair test since for whatever reason you cannot enter a comment. However, I can tell you this, it got a lot of traffic yesterday and today and was passed around quite a bit.
To me, there seems to be 2 issues and the aricles don’t make that really clear (at least on a little iphone!). One is that there appears to be a campus sanctioned student protest group of students whose charge is unclear, ? monitoring protests.
The other is that an undercover policewoman posed as a student and lied about who she was at a protest.
I do not see the point in the first issue, why have a student protest group at all?
The second seems more serious but perhaps an isolated incident.
I think the second issue got more play this week at the student protest of the protest group. That is what I heard.
That’s pretty much my take SODA.
ERM
I would draw the line at actual endangerment. So in the examples you have chosen, actually going onto I 80, over the line. Pulling fire alarms,over the line. Disrupting students in the library , “disturbing the chancellor’s house”depends, congregating peacefully on the sidewalk or in the park across the street, annoying but in bounds , trespassing or vandalizing, over the line.
It is not a “matter of opinion” whether or not there is a right to freedom of speech or to peacefully protest. That is one of the foundations of our country. I draw the line at safety, not inconvenience or disapproval of the ideas expressed.
If the real concern of the university group is truly safety, then I would support the actions of this group. It is a bit suspicious however that a member of the police feels the need to lie to students to “protect them” or anyone else.
One other question occurred to me about this group. If the only concern is about student safety when large numbers of students are assembled, are they planning on being out in force on Picnic Day ? At least as manifested last year, there is probably more danger to students and others on this one day than from any of the protests so far. It would greatly enhance the group’s reputation as a safety focused group if they made a showing tomorrow as well as at “student activist “events.
medwoman-
Good Morning. You make a very good point about Picnic Day. No one has contacted me about being there tomorrow so as far as I know there are no formal plans for our group to be there.
I think the reason is due to the number of volunteers and the number of people attending picnic day. We are a small group but can normally have enough volunteers to support, in shifts, a small gathering of 15-50 students. Picnic day is of course much much larger and is made up of not only students and also people from Davis and surrounding areas. In an ideal world we would have enough volunteers to be stationed all around campus in case we could be of assistance but that just isn’t doable given the size of the campus and how many people will be attending.
Great point though. Thanks.
JeffAustin,
Thank you for your work and the great job you and your team are doing. It never is a bad thing to keep events safe.
To Jeff Austin: I concur with rusty49. Thank you and your volunteers for what you do, which is to keep our sometimes overly zealous youth safe from themselves.
To medwoman: I am all for free speech, provided it is within the confines of the law – time, manner and place restrictions followed, and does not endanger the safety and rights of other students. The examples I gave are all true, as my son was on campus at the time. Yes, free speech can be annoying, such as protests on the sidewalk in front of the Chancellor’s House. But I’m sure the concern was the protest was going to be more than just yelling protests from the sidewalk, since the crowd had become so militant. The problem is that often people will engage in extremely inapprpropriate/illegal behavior in a mob that they would never do as a single individual. I doubt under normal circumstances a single one of those students would have even considered going out onto I-80 as individuals, but collectively were seriously contemplating it…
SODA: “The other is that an undercover policewoman posed as a student and lied about who she was at a protest.”
So what if she did? Undercover police get to do that…it is not illegal. What the students did WAS ILLEGAL… Like I said, the moral relativism that is taking place on this issue amazes me…
What action did students take on March 2nd that was illegal?
Further, if any person or group of people take/s an illegal action which does not cause harm to anyone else, and the action is taken to protest a law or policy which they feel is unjust, what’s the harm in that?
Here I am not referring to March 2nd, but to protests in a general sense.
I mean to say that actions of civil disobedience are the foundation of American Democracy. Take for example the civil disobedience of the American colonists in response to the Stamp Act.
Or perhaps the Boston Tea Party.
These are actions which we as Americans celebrate as part of our history and cultural heritage. What is so altogether wrong about modern Americans carrying out actions of civil disobedience?
I remind you that nobody has ever been hurt by these protesters. Nobody has been tarred and feathered, as it were. And no valuable commodity (or property) has been destroyed.
The idea that this response team is set up for reasons of safety is a sham.
To quote from UC President Mark Yudof’s book When Government Speaks:
“Throughout history, governments have utilized murder, torture, agents provocateurs, dossiers, propaganda, and intrigue to achieve their objectives. But such techniques are crude and often make it difficult to reach large numbers of people quickly. The modern state is far more efficient in the light of technological advances in weaponry, communication, and detection. Indeed, the crude measures of the past have in part given way to more subtle, pervasive, and effective means of controlling large populations.”
Two pages later he adds:
“Government also seeks to gain compliance with rules and policies by persuading people of their rightness, of the advantages of voluntary compliance, and of the risks of alternative modes of action. It seeks to arouse peer pressure against individuals who deviate.”
I believe this team, which organizers once thought to call the “Freedom of Expression Support Team” has in fact been organized to chill speech and actions which are contrary to the goals and policies of the current administration.
bts: “What action did students take on March 2nd that was illegal?”
1) attempted to go out onto I-80 to stop traffic
2) disrupted Unitrans on campus so some students were late to exams
3) disrupted students studying in the library
4) pulled fire alarms
Need I say more? At what point do you draw the line, or do you believe students should have been allowed to go onto I-80?
The above listed incidents happened on March 4th of 2010.
I am interested in any illegal activities which took place on March 2nd of 2011, the same day that the plainclothes police officers were found embedded among the protesters.
Too, my previously made points remain unanswered.
btsparks-
The students were very orderly on March 2nd, 2011. The only illegal activity was them standing in the middle of Russell Blvd, blocking traffic, for several minutes. They then moved off the road and went to the Chancellor’s residence.
They discussed taking over one of the student dorms but when one of our staff told them the potential legal ramifications of them doing that, they decided to only occupy public building e.g. Dutton, Mrak, instead. A very clear example, in my opinion, where our being with them made a difference.
I found the students very organized, peaceful and respectful on March 2nd. Certainly no behavior that was cause for concern.
jeff
ERM
“so what if she did” ( lie to the students ).
This truly is a matter of line drawing. Not all actions that are legal are also moral. I fail to see how lying to students made anyone safer.
So speaking of moral relativism, I find it morally repugnant to lie to students in the name of safety especially in view of Jeff’s statement that the students were very orderly. ” Certainly no behavior that was cause for concern.” It would not appear that this was a situation in which revealing her true identity would have placed the officer or anyone else in danger. So what possible benefit can come of teaching the students that the police will lie when confronted?. Not a good way to engender trust or respect in my opinion.
Oops. Obviously that line should have read ” would not have placed the officer …. In danger.
“So what if she did? Undercover police get to do that…it is not illegal. What the students did WAS ILLEGAL”
The university believes it was not a wise decision to lie to students, when it was obvious that the person was a police officer.
What the students did at that event was not illegal, btw. They simply demonstrated in front of the chancellor’s house.
Sorry, but I have no “moral” problem w undercover cops “lying” about their identity. LOL If the students stay within the bounds of the law while protesting, there shoudn’t be a problem.
dmg: “What the students did at that event was not illegal, btw. They simply demonstrated in front of the chancellor’s house.”
The University had every reason to believe this crowd might do something stupid, since they had already engaged in plenty of illegal activity prior to that and seemed to be getting militant. The students brought this on themselves…
“the university had every right to believe….and seemed to be getting militant”
Two points about this :
1)First it would seem to be contradicted by Jeff Austin’s post in which he states that he found the students to be “well organized, peaceful and respectful”. Since I was not there, I would tend to have to accept the impression of someone who was over that of someone who has repeatedly referenced their recollections of Vietnam Nam war protests as the basis for attitudes about students right to protest.
2) Even if the university did have a reason to believe that the crowd might “do something stupid” this strikes me as ” pre crime” thinking as in
“The Minority Report”. I do not believe, according to Jeff’s account that any “undercover” activity appeared to be warranted.
And while there are doubtless circumstances in which lying by an undercover officer is both legally and morally justifiable,such as when her own safety or that of others is at stake. I simply do not see this as one of them. I placed a very high value on telling the truth when raising my children and hate to see that undermined by someone who is supposed to be representing our highest standards.
Elaine: well the university thought the way that the officer conducted herself was the wrong thing to do even if you don’t.
The university put out some PC nonsense to diffuse criticism. The fact of the matter is the police did nothing illegal. If undercover cops keep students safe, especially nonprotesting students, I don’t have a problem with it. That is bc I have seen what can happen when protesting students have been allowed to get out of hand. Have you?
ERM
“have you ?”
Having grown up in the same era as you, my answer to your question is a resounding yes !
And I have also seen the consequences that occur when the government or it’s representatives are allowed to get “out of hand” and the consequences of governmental lying which I would say have cost far more lives than have any amount of student protests.
We could argue back and forth for days about the justification or lack thereof for many overt and covert military actions that have occurred in our lifetimes under the justification of protecting us. So rather than cite what I would consider to be examples, I would like to share my direct experience. 25 years ago I served in a little known non-arms bearing branch of the military as a commissioned officer. I had a choice of several potential postings. Unfortunately, during my interviews, I was lied to repetitively by one of the commanding officers. This resulted in my accepting a posting for which he surely knew from my resume and interview I was not fully qualified in order to fill his positions. While the consequences were serious for me in that they came close to causing me to abandon my career, they lead to what I now consider to have been at least two preventable deaths. Was what he did in convincing my that I was capable of handling this post illegal ? Probably not.
Was it immoral…. In my opinion, yes. I simply cannot justify lying by those in authority whom we are supposed to be able to trust when there is no imminent threat.
Medwoman – first of all (and as a veteran myself) I agree with what you’ve said about lying.
I would expand your assessment to say that when authority figures hatch a plan of action in secret, and maintain it as a secret for nine months even though many people would be very interested to know what they’re doing, that is also lying.
There has been some attempt by the administration to apologize for the incident involving the officer who lied directly to students, but there has been no apology for the actions taken by the university’s top administrators in keeping this team secret for so long.
I think the police officer lying to students is merely a symptom of a problem.
The problem itself is the lack of respect given to students at UC Davis.
btsparks
Agreed that there would appear to be more dishonesty than I appreciated. I had somehow missed the part about the group remaining secret for nine months. I would be very interested to hear from Jeff Austin about how the group was formed, why the prolonged secrecy and his impression about the underlying relations between the administration, campus police and the volunteers.