One of the key moments of the actual hearings on Wednesday came when Assemblymember Marty Block asked perhaps the most critical question of Chancellor Linda Katehi – what would you have done differently that day?
The chancellor responded, “If I knew the police could not remove the tents peacefully, we would not have removed them.”
The chancellor was not the only one saying the right things.
“These images were very disturbing, disappointing and, as we all know, shocking not only to us in California but to the nation,” Senator Alan Lowenthal said. “Something is wrong with a system where our children and students, struggling peacefully to have their voices heard, are answered by the spray of chemical weapons and the sting of batons.”
Everyone knows something went horribly wrong that day in November when what should have been a peaceful protest turned into a national fiasco. But no one knows exactly what to do about it.
It is fitting that on the same day that the Assembly and Senate met jointly to discuss these matters, the Attorney General punted the criminal investigation back to local authorities.
A letter from the Attorney General’s office stated, “As you have mentioned, none of the traditional criteria warranting this Office’s assumption of the primary law enforcement role in this matter – including a conflict of interest or inadequate resources – are present.”
They added, “This Office justifiably maintains great confidence in the commitment of your office, and that of local law enforcement generally, to discharge its duties, and we therefore decline your request.”
But there are conflicts any time a law enforcement agency has to investigate another law enforcement agency. Lt. Pike, we are told, has close relations with DA investigators. And indeed, law enforcement agencies like the DA’s office have to rely on local police agencies to work closely with them to carry out their duties.
The DA and sheriff did the right thing here in acknowledging, “While the traditional indicia requiring the Attorney General’s involvement, conflict or lack of resources, may not be present in this matter these events are not traditional in nature and call for an examination of events that have statewide ramifications.”
“In the absence of such action it is our belief that the public’s confidence in the conclusions reached may be significantly undermined,” they wrote.
Some of the critical questions, in fact, expand well outside the scope of this event or local law enforcements activities, and extend into the University of California’s Office of the President itself and the system-wide use of force guidelines.
The other glaring issue was raised by several on the panel, including our own Assemblymember Mariko Yamada.
“We must not forget these protests were born out of the outrage and hopelessness that many feel are due to the increasing disinvestment in higher education,” she said in a news release and a video statement. “This is just one system among many that is under the constant attack of diminishing revenue. These protests and issues will not change until we address the fundamental issue of funding for education.”
“Just as the protesters linked arms in solidarity, we need to link our arms and eventually shake hands to achieve a positive outcome and renew our focus on higher education, learning, and making our country and our state a better place,” she said.
This was a point that the chancellor hit upon as well: “I do not mean to diminish the significance of the pepper spray incident, but we all need to work together to make higher education more affordable and accessible, or there will be continued frustration from students: Both from those who protest, and from those who only want to go to class without distraction.”
What is driving this anger and this confrontation is a situation that is really well outside of the control of either the students or UC officials and that is the budget situation, the fact that tuition has dramatically increased and middle class students are feeling threatened.
The situation is extremely volatile right now and there is really no end in sight.
People like Chancellor Katehi and President Yudof, however, become convenient targets not only because of the response from the system, but because they are making tremendous amounts of money at the same time student tuitions are threatening students with economic hardship and some with a loss of college education.
To make matters worse, the UC Board of Regenets, at the height of this controversy, decided to raise the salaries of a small number of administrators – a symbolic outrage for sure, but one that definitely confirms the worst fears of the students.
The students honestly believe that UC has enough resources to avoid fee hikes if they simply reduced the salaries of top administrators and managed their assets more modestly.
I don’t think that’s actually accurate, but it does resonate powerfully when students see wealthy administrators receiving bonuses and salary increases under the guise of competition.
The bottom line, in our view, is that this situation is not going to de-escalate and it is likely to explode in more acts of frustration by the students.
Officials are in a quandary, and I don’t think they know exactly what to do.
They say the right things.
“As chancellor, I am accountable for everything that happens on our campus, and I accept responsibility for this event,” the chancellor said. “I also accept responsibility for taking corrective action so this does not happen again. I realize it does not undo what happened, but I issued an apology to the students who were pepper sprayed and to our entire UC Davis community.”
UC President Mark Yudof, in his prepared remarks, said, “I am deeply distressed by images of University of California students being sprayed with pepper spray at UC Davis and jabbed with police batons at UC Berkeley. I of course never want to see pain inflicted on students.”
All that is clear. What is not clear is what happens when they release their report and the chancellor is not forced to resign and the findings are ambiguous as to whether the police acted appropriately.
Neither the chancellor nor the UC President have prepared for that most-likely scenario, and if they do not handle it right, the situation has a chance to become quite dangerous.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Good article…
“very disturbing”
“shocking”
“chemical weapons”
“sting of batons”
“a national fiasco”
I didn’t know this was a blog for novels and creative writing.
I am really getting tired of manufactured moral outrage for this and other “media” circus events. Last I checked, after 30-45 minutes having a reaction similar to accidentally drinking a mouthful of hot sauce, the kids are all fine. Nobody was seriously hurt. Also, the follow up video appears to support the cops’ assertion that the crowd was not peaceful. The fact is that the behavior of those students and/or protestors was “deplorable”, “troubling” and “disgusting”. (I wanted to try out some emotive language too!)
[i]“The students honestly believe that UC has enough resources to avoid fee hikes if they simply reduced the salaries of top administrators and managed their assets more modestly.”[/i]
This is absolutely correct. One thing working against the highly compensated top UC officials… they select bright kids and actually educate them a bit even while the UC faculty is filling their heads with the socialist’s view of entitlement and wealth distribution. Enough of these students have the business sense to smell the real rat of a bloated and inefficient university operation.
Related to college costs rising 2-3 times the rate of inflation for the last several decades… what we are experiencing is the net result of academics in charge. With respect to UC management, academics generally associate with other academics and do not trust non-academics… in fact they are prone to bias against non-academics. So, UC administrators all come from that same rarified air. However, they are generally too inexperienced and/or ill equipped to lead and manage large competitive enterprises. They don’t manage with any sense of urgency. They are tone deaf to the existing and developing problems of their organizations business model. They are all fluffed up without the right stuff.
It is clear that the old UC business model is seriously broken. What we need going forward is significant governance separation between administration and faculty. We need qualified business professionals running the colleges like a competitive enterprise. The students are customers and should be treated as such. They deserve a university constantly striving to provide the absolute best education service value instead of being constantly impacted by the academics in charge driving up costs to satiate egos and leverage prestige.
Today, UCD is more like a nursery for highly-credentialed academics… with the students being a secondary, but necessary, consideration only because they bring dollars to run the nursery. It does not work. It has to change.
To me, everybody saying all the right stuff at a scripted photo-op for the State Legislature means nothing.
The University of California turned a small peaceful demonstration into an international fiasco, in which their police force was photographed violating State Law as well as their own Use of Force Regulations. Somebody is responsible. Until that person or persons is [b]identified and punished[/b] all the photo-ops in the World are not going to repair U.C.s reputation.
And I see no reason why the public should be expected to wait until next March for that [b]punishment[/b] to occur.
Roger, just maybe that paragon, Eric Holder will fast & furiously file charges against the police for violating the unspecified state law?
AdRemmer,
Not likely bro. Holder is too busy harassing pot smokers to bother prosecuting those who would violently deny citizens their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech and assembly.
Roger: [quote] harassing pot smokers [/quote]
Is that a a fact?
‘a fact’
BTW, what was that unspecified ‘state law’ again?
Adremer said,
[i]”BTW, what was that unspecified ‘state law’ again?” [/i]
CALIFORNIA STATE PENAL CODE SEC. 149
Every public officer who, under color of authority, without
lawful necessity, assaults or beats any person, is punishable by a
fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by imprisonment
in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or
by both such fine and imprisonment.
Jeff
While I would agree with you that there has been a fair amount of hyperbole regarding this issue, I have to take exception with you on one point.
Pepper spray is in fact, not opinion, a chemical weapon. It is not as lethal as some other weapons, but it is a weapon all the same.
“The University of California turned a small peaceful demonstration into an international fiasco, in which their police force was photographed violating State Law as well as their own Use of Force Regulations. Somebody is responsible. Until that person or persons is identified and punished all the photo-ops in the World are not going to repair U.C.s reputation. “
Anyone who has read my previous comments knows that I do not approve of the use of pepper spray. I feel that from the time the police walked on to the quad, there was opportunity after opportunity to de escalate the situation which were not chosen. One can also argue whether the presence of the police on the quad was a good choice in the first place. However, I strongly disagree that the identification and punishment of culprits is necessary to repair UC’s reputation. To me, that is the easy way out. To say, ” look, we identified and fired ( or in some other way punished) the villain, becomes a way to avoid having to address the underlying systemic issues that contribute to the snowballing of bad decisions culminating in the use of spray.
Roger, now all you have to do is outline that ALL elements of said statute have been met.
[quote]To say, ” look, we identified and fired ( or in some other way punished) the villain, becomes a way to avoid having to address the underlying systemic issues that contribute to the snowballing of bad decisions culminating in the use of spray. [/quote]
Nicely said!
Adremer said,
[i]
“Roger, now all you have to do is outline that ALL elements of said statute have been met.” [/i]
Actually,Adremer, I don’t have to outline anything. [i][b]The entire statute[/b][/i] is posted above. Any interpretation is up to the courts. Unfortunately, in the police state which my country is rapidly becoming, the courts seldom side with the victims of police brutality.
Investigations of this blatant violation of CPC Sec. 149 may well prove that Pike and the other pepper sprayer were, in fact, just following orders. In that case whoever issued that order should be criminally prosecuted for violation of CPC Sec. 149
medwoman saidHowever,
[i]
“I strongly disagree that the identification and punishment of culprits is necessary to repair UC’s reputation. To me, that is the easy way out. To say, ” look, we identified and fired ( or in some other way punished) the villain, becomes a way to avoid having to address the underlying systemic issues that contribute to the snowballing of bad decisions culminating in the use of spray. ,”[/i]
I couldn’t agree with you more, medwoman, that systemic problems that tolerate crackdowns on free speech must be addressed. However we also can’t just blame the “system” and hold no one responsible. That’s why we have civil rights laws.
Actions have consequences. And somebody, maybe several somebodies, is responsible for the fiasco on November 18th. There needs to be consequences for those actions. We change the system. [b]AND[/b] punish the responsible parties.
Roger bockrath
I agree that my belief in the futility of individual punishment may seem strange. But in all but the most egregious cases, I believe it is the correct course. People are human and we all make errors. In my profession where it is not unusual to have to make life and death decisions, sometimes in minutes, sometimes with very limited information sometimes we get a very bad outcome. If we insisted on blaming individuals and firing those deemed responsible every time, in short order there would be no acute care, high risk physicians in practice. I would save a punitive approach for those who are grossly negligent , shown to be repetitively incompetent,or intend harm. For everyone else there should be investigation, analysis of best practices and retraining as needed.
Medwoman,
I wonder if you are aware that Officer Pike already go the University sued to the tune of $240,000. when he was the responsible party in the gay cop-bashing incident. I understand that it came out in the course of that trial that Pike has and Arian Nations emblem and a Nazi swastika tattooed on his back.
This man should never have been put in the position to abuse students and embarrass the University.
Retraining may be justified for mistakes of incompetence, but there comes a time when society just has to say “enough” to repeat offenders.
[i]”Pepper spray is in fact, not opinion, a chemical weapon. It is not as lethal as some other weapons, but it is a weapon all the same.”[/i]
Mewoman, it is hyperbole to lump this into the “chemical weapon” category and I think those using the label know it. The cops get sprayed with it as part of their training. What other “chemical weapon” is tested this way?
It is a compliance tool… it is an alternative to using other pain compliance methods which I think are more dangerous.
Jeff
it is hyperbole to lump this into the “chemical weapon” category and I think those using the label know it. The cops get sprayed with it as part of their training. What other “chemical weapon” is tested this way?
1) I disagree that it is hyperbole to call something by its true name. A scalpel is not a machete. They are both potentially lethal blades.
2) Your opinion about what others know does not give you special insight into our thoughts.
3) Whether or not other chemicals have been tested in “the same way” is irrelevant to the chemical nature of this particular weapon. I suspect that other substances have probably been tested and found wanting.
4) When police officers are sprayed as part of their training, they have already been through rigorous physical testing to ensure their health and ability to withstand their training regimens. I am sure the training is done in controlled circumstances with ready access to neutralizing substances. These circumstances do not pertain to spray used on unscreened students in a medically uncontrolled setting.
5) Yes, if you only compare the use of pepper spray to other means of “pain compliance” you may be right. But if you compare it with all means of obtaining compliance ( neglect, patience, diplomacy, blockade of supplies, sprinklers, ) pepper spray starts to look less benign and attractive.
6) I think that a post by Don Shor has real validity in this situation. To paraphrase Don’s comment, differences of opinion do not mean that one’s opponent is uninformed ( or stupid, naive, or duplicitous for that matter), they may simply reflect a difference in values.
From many of your previous posts, you seem to value competition, protection of conservative values, and what I would generalize as a “law and order approach”. I tend to value collaboration, have more tolerance for the coexistence of different value systems within the same society, and would always see the use of physical force as an absolute last resort to be used only in the face of imminent physical threat of harm.
I understand that there is danger at either extreme of viewpoint. I happen to believe that a police state is a more credible fear than is anarchy. You may feel differently. But it serves no one to denigrate the others genuinely held beliefs.