It was a statement that certainly jumped out of at us as we read the report by the Reynoso Task Force and Kroll. The statement made by John Meyer seemed like a statement from another time.
He explained, “Our context at the time was seeing what’s happening in the City of Oakland, seeing what’s happening in other municipalities across the country, and not being able to see a scenario where [a UC Davis Occupation] ends well . . . “
He continued: “Do we lose control and have non-affiliates become part of an encampment? So my fear is a longterm occupation with a number of tents where we have an undergraduate student and a non-affiliate and there’s an incident.”
He would go on to render one of the more baffling, if not ironic, statements in the report: “And then I’m reporting to a parent that a nonaffiliated has done this unthinkable act with your daughter, and how could we let that happen?”
The irony is that, through his actions, some unthinkable act did occur with people’s daughters, and sons. But moreover, it shows an almost paternalistic mindset that seems more appropriate fifty years ago than today.
While spokespersons at the university defend the statement as just reflecting the caring nature of the vice chancellor, a few in the community have taken offense to the statement.
Elizabeth Freeman, a UC Davis Professor of English noted not only the quote from the vice chancellor, but also similar words from Chancellor Linda Ketahi.
Chancellor Katehi’s words were: “We were worried at the time about that because the issues from Oakland were in the news and the use of drugs and sex and other things, and you know here we have very young students . . . we worried especially about having very young girls and other students with older people who come from the outside without any knowledge of their record . . . if anything happens to any student while we’re in violation of policy, it’s a very tough thing to overcome.”
“Apparently the decision to force the dismantling of the UC Davis Occupy encampment immediately was made because the administration feared ‘outsiders’ coming in and sexually assaulting young, female UC Davis students,” Professor Freeman writes.
She adds, “I imagine that any female participants in the Occupy protests would find Vice Chancellor’s remarks patronizing in the extreme. “
Professor Freeman moves broader, arguing that “invoking the specter of the violated child is a right-wing tactic” that she notes present both in Anita Bryant’s 1977 campaign against legislation that would have prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and in the rhetoric in favor of Proposition 8.
She concludes, “The specter of the ‘stranger’ raping the young has been used to legitimize all kinds of violence. I cannot accept leaders who would mobilize it to defend the use of force against political protest.”
In a similar vein, J. Smith argues that “factual and rational views of the women were ignored. Command decisions by women were countermanded and misinterpreted.”
She cites the lack of response to Griselda Castro’s warning, the fact that Chief Spicuzza’s orders not to use riot gear and weapons were not followed, that she reisted the 3:00 pm attack plan but “was countermanded by her officers and ignored by the Leadership Team.”
A group called Reclaim UC, best known for organizing the protest at the Capital in early March, writes, “In reality, though, it’s probably too generous to call these command failures ‘mistakes’ — they indicate something else, a sort of willful antipathy combined with authoritarian paternalism directed toward the student body by Chancellor Katehi, her ‘Leadership Team,’ and the UC Davis administration in general.”
They add, “It is with the specter of the ‘non-affiliate’ that this authoritarianism manifests itself most clearly. To state this argument in stronger terms: the ‘non-affiliate’ is the central element that both shapes the administrative gaze and reveals its operative logic.”
Reclaim UC argues, “The language of the administration depicts the ‘non-affiliate’ as a highly sexualized, racialized, and criminalized body, a foreign, contaminating body, a body that does not belong, that, like a cancer, presents a clear and present danger, that must be quickly identified and surgically removed.”
Nathan Brown, the outspoken English professor writes, “And what is it, exactly, that our tepid Vice Chancellor has in mind when he refers to ‘this unthinkable act’ that might transpire between an undergraduate and a ‘non-affiliate?” Does he mean rape? It seems this is either a concept he does not understand (‘with your daughter,’ he says) or a word he is unable to use in a sentence.”
He adds, “But perhaps he just means ‘sex and other things/’ Perhaps the very notion that an undergraduate — and a ‘daughter’ no less — might have sex with a ‘non-affiliate’ is an unthinkable act in the view of our painstakingly upright administrators.”
Writes Professor Brown, “In brief, all that the pathetic and infantile discourse of the ‘Leadership Team’ has to offer in its defense is the danger of sex and drugs, of ‘older people,’ and the terribly frightening specter of ‘Oakland.’ “
He adds, “One needn’t look far to find an identical sexist, paternalist, pseudo-moralistic discourse deployed in the most unbearably racist, xenophobic contexts. It is always the same thing with authoritarian bureaucrats who send in police to guard the young and innocent against those who ‘come from the outside’: they are more than willing to sanction brutal violence to buttress whatever obscene fantasy of purity serves as their faulty moral compass.”
There is a notion of in loco parentis that permeates this discussion. However, as many note, the application of the concept has largely disappeared in higher education.
Prior to the 1960s, universities placed a great deal of restriction on students in their private lives – these included curfews, one-sex dorms and expulsion for morally undesirable behavior. However, these paternalistic notions began to disappear in the 1960s, first through a 1961 Supreme Court decision that ruled that Alabama State College could not summarily expel students for moralistic violations without due process.
It is easy enough to dismiss this criticism as coming from radicals, twisting and torturing the words of those in authority. The problem I see is that there is an irony here that some are missing.
The justification of launching a police action was ostensibly to protect the student from the outsider; make no mind at this point that the report finds that they failed to sufficiently test their theories and determine whether there truly were outsiders.
But more importantly, the very action carried out with poor planning, no apparent legal basis, and executed poorly, spinning out of control, actually put the students at far more risk than anything they were subjected to from the few townies and recent graduates that gathered with the enrolled students.
The irony, of course, is that in trying to protect “my daughter,” they ended up spraying her in the eyes with pepper spray.
At least “my daughter” would have the choice and the decision to be made, in terms of the decision to protest and join the movement. The police action, which again appears without legal authority, thwarts that.
So in protecting people’s “daughters” they endangered people’s “daughters” and “sons.” In a real sense they committed the sin of Vietnam all over again and they destroyed that village in order to save it from the ravages of Communism. So they have sprayed pepper spray in the eyes of the male and female students in order to save them from themselves.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I’ve strongly opposed what happened in the pepper spray incident but I think this column is a bit looney.
It was perfectly legitimate to worry about the safety of the encampment–there were non-students involved and Oakland was a disaster. That doesn’t mean the University handled this well–they clearly did not, but they had every right to be concerned.
Perhaps you think UCD acting [i]in loco parentis[/i] is antiquated but others won’t–and quoating a few left English professors does not represent the campus community.
Many lessons need to be learned from what happened. One lesson that should NOT be learned is that UCD should be indifferent to students. In the end this was a tragedy precisely becuase it harmed students that were supposed to be protected.
Now are all these statements just administrators covering the derriers? Maybe. I don’t know. But I don’t think you can completely dismiss these concrens.
Dr. Wu, the idea of protecting students is not looney and not really where this column was supposed to go. It was the way that it was expressed that drew my attention and frankly the attention of a lot of people – a number of people emailed me the exact quote from Meyer and thought it was very odd in this day and age. I don’t have a particular problem quoting from left professors – just because they are left professors doesn’t make them wrong and I happen to agree at least with the sentiment.
Dr. Wu
Coming from a somewhat different perspective, I also found the comments of VC Meyer and Chancellor Katehi odd. Not because of their concern about adverse consequences in terms of drugs or rape, but how they seemingly failed to weigh these potential risks against other and perhaps more realistic risks given the composition of the group which they failed to adequately investigat as demonstrated by failure to pursue this issue in the face of two wildly differing estimates of ” non affiliates”.
[quote]While spokespersons at the university defend the statement as just reflecting the caring nature of the vice chancellor, a few in the community have taken offense to the statement.[/quote]
Think other Occupier protests, like Oakland, that turned violent. Other Occupier protests did involve violence including rapes, rat infestations, infiltration by outside agitators, etc. Think Whole Earth Festival – there were assaults on young women right here on the UCD campus. The concerns of Katehi and Meyers were not unfounded, but right on the money in light of recent past history. And as I repeated so often on this blog, the “in loco parentis doctrine” on college campuses is not dead and buried but alive and well in one form or another. The doctrine was used in a fairly recent case of a university that improperly left a dorm unlocked, where a student was killed by an outsider…
[quote]It was perfectly legitimate to worry about the safety of the encampment–there were non-students involved and Oakland was a disaster. That doesn’t mean the University handled this well–they clearly did not, but they had every right to be concerned. [/quote]
Bingo!
Scapegoating non-students as an excuse for brutality is offensive. It grated on my ears from the first time I heard Katehi use it at the town hall she held shortly after it hit the fan. The idea that people who are old enough to vote, serve in the military, be tried as adults and live away from home need to be protected from their own bad decisions, as if they were in high school, by police in riot gear, is grotesquely offensive.
I remember in the student strike after Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia walking home from middle school through UCLA. A cop asked us if we went to school there. No we were just neighborhood school kids who wanted to see what was going on. I’m sure we were perceived as outside agitators although we were really not agitating just observing.
Where did the idea of non-affiliates come from? Could it have been something Katehi learned to use at the FBI training as an excuse for suppression and only her top brass were in on it? Maybe that is why the plea for caution fell upon deaf ears and mute mouths.
I’m really glad you wrote this piece taking on this offensive ruse of protecting the students as an excuse for suppressing them I just have one small issue. I don’t see the questionable issue of the legal authority to act against the encampment as a big deal but you seem to think it is. Other than that you did a great job on this one.
John Meyer’s remarks may well be characterized as being paternalistic and dated. They could, conversely, be characterized as having a deep sense of caring over the welfare and safety of students on his turf and his responsibility as the controller of the Police Department.
Ultimately, the choice between the two polar interpretations is how one seeks to portray John Meyer, the person. While we are at it, let’s give equal analysis of remarks from one of Meyer’s critics. Making analogies dating back 35 years, using inflammatory terms such as sexism, racism, ageism, xenophobia, and the always reliable, “bureaucrat,” makes Meyer’s comments boring and rational by comparison.
[quote]”It is easy enough to dismiss this criticism as coming from radicals, twisting and torturing the words of those in authority.”[/quote]So far, it certainly is. And, making a mountain out of a molehill, as well.
On the other hand, we finally find Nathan Brown opining on a topic about which he speaks with at least some authority, the English language.
It starts to appear Prof. Brown will look like a moderate in the company of the Reclaim UC hyperbolizers-in-chief until he feels compelled to work in his obligatory Hitler/Nazi analogy:[quote]”One needn’t look far to find an identical sexist, paternalist, pseudo-moralistic discourse deployed in the most unbearably racist, xenophobic contexts….they are more than willing to sanction brutal violence to buttress whatever obscene fantasy of purity serves as their faulty moral compass.”[/quote]Still, today’s award for Best Exaggeration of a Mildly Patronizing Sentence goes to the Reclaim folks:[quote]”The language of the administration depicts the ‘non-affiliate’ as a highly sexualized, racialized, and criminalized body, a foreign, contaminating body, a body that does not belong, that, like a cancer, presents a clear and present danger, that must be quickly identified and surgically removed…”[/quote]Today’s story clearly illustrates the hazards and frustrations facing UCD authorities in dealing with this particular “movement.”
The over-the-top language their leaders use in decrying John Meyer’s comment (“the language of the administration”)–or as David calls it, the “Paternalistic Rhetoric of the UCD Administration”–gives a pretty good hint at the reasonableness of the people urging on the demonstrators.
What can UCD do that will satisfy these folks, whose primary enjoyment seems to be in the confrontation itself?
“JustSaying” thinks analyses of Meyer’s documented statement are somehow more of an exaggeration than the Vice Chancellor’s statement itself, which describes a situation completed divorced from reality. The gap between Meyer’s mental construct of the encampment and the encampment itself is clearly visible in the Kroll/Reynoso report. So if Meyer’s comments aren’t reality based, they must be based on a fantasy version of the world, in which “outsiders” and “others” are automatically perceived as a threat, without any actual evidence. This is exactly analogous to the racialized, xenophobic paranoia referred to by Meyer’s critics. Brown doesn’t mention Hitler, despite “JustSaying’s” claim, so who is caricaturing whom?
[i]”While we are at it, let’s give equal analysis of remarks from one of Meyer’s critics. Making analogies dating back 35 years, using inflammatory terms such as sexism, racism, ageism, xenophobia, and the always reliable, “bureaucrat,” makes Meyer’s comments boring and rational by comparison.”[/i]
Very good point Mr. Coleman!
[i]”What can UCD do that will satisfy these folks, whose primary enjoyment seems to be in the confrontation itself?”[/i]
JustSaying, IMO, that is a very fine rhetorical “bingo!” question.
My thinking…
If these protestors want something other than “Paternalistic Rhetoric of the UCD Administration”, maybe they should stop behaving like out of control kids looking for trouble and a party.
[quote]What can UCD do that will satisfy these folks, whose primary enjoyment seems to be in the confrontation itself? [/quote]
After three years of constant, highly visible, and well publicized statewide protests against budget cuts, tuition increases, privatization, and the criminalization of dissent, your claim to not know what will satisfy student demonstrator is completely ludicrous. So you’re either feigning stupidity or don’t have to pretend. Which is it?
So crank, these protestors only want:
1. No budget cuts
2. No tuition increases
3. No privatization
4. And complete freedom to break the law while protesting about these three things.
I think the student protesters want 2 and 4, and the Democrat-Union consortia are attempting to ride their coattails for 1 and 3.
Of course, crank, I understand and support the budget cuts/tuition increases/faculty-administration pay increases issues. The “privatization” is a much newer, and more complicated, matter.
If closing down the bank branch solves that problem for them, fine, but I don’t see the problem the way the blockaders do. And, of course, it didn’t satisfy them.
Of course, you’ve misdirected my question and to these bigger issues when I really was commenting on the current demonstrators and how they’ve behaved the past few months.
Your effort to conflate supports both of our points, I guess. It suggests to me that they’ll [u]never[/u] be satisfied, partly because of the nature of the issues you list and partly because there are other issues that are driving the leaders (who love the confrontation).
I feel the “criminalization of dissent” charge ignores the fact that demonstrators sometimes decide to become criminals (when they choose to break the law during demonstrations). The chancellor decided to view the early stages of criminality as something the university should try to accommodate. Did that satisfy anyone?
That the blockaders start whining about free speech violations with crimes they knowing and publicly committed suggests a level of arrogance and/or ignorance that surprises me a little.
In answer to your question, I’m neither stupid or pretending to be stupid. I’m mystified sometimes; maybe you’re confusing that for stupidity.
@ Jeff Boone
[quote]4. And complete freedom to break the law while protesting about these three things. [/quote]
You’re missing one of the Kroll/Reynoso report’s main findings: the legal basis for removing the protesters was unclear. That’s a diplomatic euphemism for having no legal right to remove the protesters, let alone pepper-spray them. As the report shows, it’s the police and the administration who have “complete freedom to break the law.”
@ JustSaying
[quote]I feel the “criminalization of dissent” charge ignores the fact that demonstrators sometimes decide to become criminals (when they choose to break the law during demonstrations). The chancellor decided to view the early stages of criminality as something the university should try to accommodate. Did that satisfy anyone? [/quote]
The cops are often the ones who make arbitrary decisions about who is breaking the law, simply by declaring an unlawful assembly, or by turning a simple citation into an arrest which often includes allegations of resisting or felony assault, regardless of the arrestee’s passivity. The working assumption among some of you seems to be that protest itself is illegal. This was also the erroneous assumption of Katehi, et al., as determined by the report.
Your characterization of these protests, including the bank blockade, as “crimes” ignores the fact that these actions have not been proven to be crimes in a court of law. Right now they are simply allegations, brought to the DA by a university administration that has already proven itself to have poor judgment and a poor understanding of the law.
“And as I repeated so often on this blog, the “in loco parentis doctrine” on college campuses is not dead and buried but alive and well in one form or another.”
You’ve said it but I’ve not seen you back it up with more than just assertions.
“What can UCD do that will satisfy these folks, whose primary enjoyment seems to be in the confrontation itself?”
You’re asking the wrong question, the real question is what can the university do to avoid upsetting the sensibilities of those who are not radical English teachers?
[i]”You’re missing one of the Kroll/Reynoso report’s main findings: the legal basis for removing the protesters was unclear.”[/i]
It would be wonderful if all of humanity had obtained a JD and certificate to practice law so we all could properly vet the legal basis of all situations before taking action.
Lacking those lofty credentials, I would use the old baseball rule, “When in doubt, the runner is out!”
I would do this especially given the “unclearness” of the legal basis.
Timid, risk averse and politically-motivated folk seem to ignore the fact that delaying a decision is actually a decision and fraught with risk itself. It was unclear to the Federal government what the legal basis was for FEMA’s involvement in state emergency response after Katrina. Get my point?
E. Roberts Musser is right about the return of in loco parentis. It’s been a slow, creeping development, but it has been discussed fairly widely. This, along with their natural authoritarianism, is why administrators feel entitled to patronize adult students as their “children” and “young girls.”
http://reason.com/archives/2004/10/01/welcome-to-the-fun-free-univer
@JeffBoone
In this case, the applicable adage would seem to be: “When in doubt, try to throw some people in prison for 11 years.”
I hope you’re not comfortable with that.
crank, I have more faith in our legal system and sentencing even though I periodically complain about attorneys and judges. Ours is the best judicial system in the world. If a protester gets 11 years, it would be justified.
@ Jeff Boone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate
crank: Our prison numbers are inflated from our country’s continued hyper criminalization of drug use which is exacerbated by generous entitlements and plentiful public assistance. I’m all for decriminalizing most drugs, taxing them and using the revenue for treatment programs. I would have boarding schools run by the US military for kids that get caught using drugs before they are 18. Lastly, I would make sure drug users do not get food stamps and welfare unless they are enrolled in and attending treatment programs.
Do these things and our rates of incarceration will fall below those of many other countries we are compared to.
[quote]”The working assumption among some of you seems to be that protest itself is illegal.”[/quote]Not true, about me or even with respect to the chancellor. You keep suggesting this, but there’s quite a difference between that and the point I’m making.
My point, of course: breaking the law is illegal. And choosing to do that while protesting in a worthy cause is not a legal defense. Nor does prosecuting such intentional law-breaking say anything about authorities being anti-free-speech Nazis.
Whining about being charged (“Oh, my goodness, they should have arrested me earlier.”) seems disingenuous when folks purposely been breaking laws. And, now, you want to pull out the “innocent until proven guilty” to criticize others discussing the blockade matter. Fine, then don’t use the charges to claim others want demonstrators imprisoned for a decade.
David’s “Unlawful Arrests at the Core of the Failed Quad Operation…” article raises interesting points and takes them way too far. Justice Reynoso’s report summarizes the Kroll concerns about the confusion, but doesn’t conclude that the arrests were unlawful.
As you say, they’re facing allegations that may be considered in court. Of course, you’re full of allegations about the UCD leadership and police breaking the law. Maybe they’ll get their day in court as well–in the meantime, innocent until proven guilty.
[quote]”And as I repeated so often on this blog, the ‘in loco parentis doctrine’ on college campuses is not dead and buried but alive and well in one form or another.”
“You’ve said it but I’ve not seen you back it up with more than just assertions.”[/quote]Maybe you two could get in a room someplace with your references and come to agreement.
It shouldn’t be that difficult to determine the state of this relationship between schools and students. Whether it no longer applies would seen to be clearly determined by Supreme Court decisions you could research.
We’re going to have to get you counseling if you can’t get it resolved yourselves.
[quote]”What can UCD do that will satisfy these folks, whose primary enjoyment seems to be in the confrontation itself?”
You’re asking the wrong question, the real question is what can the university do to avoid upsetting the sensibilities of those who are not radical English teachers?”[/quote]You’ve got your questions; I’ve got mine.
These kids surely are looking to Nathan Brown, Joshua Clover and the ACLU Occupier for leadership. If only the professors and ACLU lawyer had a better appreciation for what their selfish encouragement means for the future of the students who follow them.
And, what’s your answer to you own “right question”? What can the university do to avoid upsetting the non-radicals involved? Please be specific.
” If only the professors and ACLU lawyer had a better appreciation for what their selfish encouragement means for the future of the students who follow them. “
More paternalistic nonsense of the “this is going to be on your record for life” nonsense my mama tried to scare me with. Where do they keep that record anyway. Oh I know Peter keeps it at the gate. A much bigger threat is the lifetime damage that student loan debt slavery is doing to people. Oh but isn’t that what this is all about! isn’t that the real protest that Katehi was trying to suppress? We have these young girls who are going to be deeply indebted with non-dischargeable debt when they get out and we need to protect the institution and our high salaries while we turn the screw on them under the cover of protecting them from some imagined threat because they are naively being led by those who don’t have their best interests at heart. Well in the interest of compounding interest we are spraying them with pepper to make sure they understand that their debt contracts will not be dismissed and what they can expect in their future should they miss a payment.
I’m not sure how your comment relates to my comment, Mr.Toad, but I’m with you on the outrage of the circular student loan/increasing tuition catastrophe. Maybe you can explain how breaking the law while demonstrating against this disaster is expected to improve their lot. And how Professor “We Are the Law Here Now” Clover’s anarchistic urgings are helpful to the demonstrators’ short- or long-term interests, permanent record or no.
Josh Clover is one of the most brilliant people I have ever met.
[quote]Josh Clover is one of the most brilliant people I have ever met[/quote]
You need to get out more.
One of the reason there is so much unrest in the English Department is that they are coming to realize they are in a dead end.
Years of expensive undergraduate and graduate studies and no job prospects.
And the students are catching on – at least some of them are. Not the occupiers unfortunately for them.
[url]http://theamericanscholar.org/the-decline-of-the-english-department/[/url]
[quote]”Brown doesn’t mention Hitler, despite “JustSaying’s” claim, so who is caricaturing whom?”[/quote]One thing I sure about, crank, is that the good professor is disappointed that you fail to comprehend his overt analogy. Or, are [u]you[/u] feigning now?
This sentence in the article is incorrect:
[i]”At least “my daughter” would have the choice and the decision to be made, in terms of the decision to protest and join the movement. The police action, which again appears without legal authority, thwarts that.”
[/i]
The potential victim is not limited to protesters, but any member of the community that might be disturbed or endangered by an influx of Occupiers migrated from closed camps from the Bay Area of from the Sacramento region.
Please address who should bear the responsibility when the victim is not a protester.
Yeah JR I need to get out more. One of the last times I did I had the occasion to party with Josh Clover. His brilliance was unmistakable. I’ll call your general indictment of English as a profession by reading it and raise you with the brilliant writing of Josh Clover.
http://www.thenation.com/article/154458/busted-stories-financial-crisis?page=0,0
Jeff
“. Ours is the best judicial system in the world. If a protester gets 11 years, it would be justified.”
For years I have heard it said that “we have the best medical system in the world”. Yet in a number of measurable parameters such as neonatal mortality, we are far from the best amongst comparably developed nations.
I would like to know the objective evidence for your claim that we have “the best judicial system in the world”.
We have the highest per capita rate of incarceration. I’m not sure it makes us best.
We have judicial review for all. Oh well we did in the past anyway.
[quote]dmg: You’ve said it but I’ve not seen you back it up with more than just assertions.
crank: E. Roberts Musser is right about the return of in loco parentis. It’s been a slow, creeping development, but it has been discussed fairly widely. This, along with their natural authoritarianism, is why administrators feel entitled to patronize adult students as their “children” and “young girls.”
http://reason.com/archives/2004/10/01/welcome-to-the-fun-free-univer%5B/quote%5D
To dmg: I dutifully and rigorously backed up my contention about the in loco parentis doctrine being alive and well on college campuses, when you were critical of my legal opinion before. Go back and reread my posts on the subject. I recall giving you a specific example involving a university that failed to lock a dorm door, for one…
[quote]JustSaying: David’s “Unlawful Arrests at the Core of the Failed Quad Operation…” article raises interesting points and takes them way too far. Justice Reynoso’s report summarizes the Kroll concerns about the confusion, but doesn’t conclude that the arrests were unlawful. [/quote]
Well said!
@ JustSaying
I think you meant [i]implied[/i] analogy. At any rate, there’s nothing in Brown’s statement to make the Hitler connection, and your tendentious invocation of Godwin’s Law, necessary. There are more local and more recent contexts of racism and xenophobia that are much more closely related to the UC and the issue of access to education.