Thursday, December 29, 2011

Save the University

UC Berkeley political theorist Wendy Brown offers the best statement I've seen of the many facets of the privatization of the University of California.

Fighting Privatization of the University of California #Occupyucdavis

This is an excellent post by Chris Newfield of UC Santa Barbara on the nature of Mark Yudof's "vision" for the University of California, alternatives to it, and some tactical ideas.

An excerpt:

In short, the administration’s defense of UC’s budget has the same logic as that which all over the Western world is lowering living standards for the 99%.  UC leaders continue to envision cuts for the student and employee majority, more control for the corporate minority, and no big university missions for society as a whole. The public university exists always on the defensive, always begging for its health. We’ve lived the whole of the new century under this cloud.  This has to stop.

Friday, December 23, 2011

UC Berkeley Faculty Senate Resolutions as a Model for UC Davis #OccupyUCDavis on Police Violence and Chancellor Birgenau

Today I had a chance to read the resolutions adopted by the UC Berkeley Academic Senate after police beat faculty and student protestors at Occupy Cal on November 9th.  I thought the resolutions were pretty compelling and might provide a model for the UC Davis Academic Senate which will take up competing resolutions of confidence and lack of confidence in Chancellor Linda B. Katehi sometime in January.

At UC Berkeley, four resolutions all passed by a vote of 336-34.  For more information, including audio of the meeting click here.

The first resolution (authored by Wendy Brown, Barrie Thorne and Judith Butler) initially declared that the faculty had "lost confidence" in Chancellor Robert Birgeneau and other top administrators but the authors toned down the resolution before the meeting, arguing:

"our resolution is being misconstrued in two important ways.  First, some have misread the resolution as unqualifiedly defending the Occupy Cal encampment and as arguing that students have the right to pitch tents on campus whenever and wherever they like.  Second, some have misread the resolution as proposing a blanket “no-confidence” vote on three administrators, effectively soliciting their resignations. Neither of these positions or effects was our intention.  Rather, we are concerned about a pattern of violent police responses to non-violent protests (three instances in two years) on our campus, and we are calling on the Senate to bring such responses to an immediate end."

Apparently, the authors wanted to express their lack of confidence in the ability of the administrators to protect free speech and the safety of student protestors but not blanket "no confidence."

Both the original and revised resolutions are below.  Three additional ones (one of which expresses "greatly diminished confidence in the Campus's leadership") are also worth reading.

Original Resolution proposed by: Wendy Brown, Professor, Political Science; Barrie Thorne, Professor, Gender and Women’s Studies/Sociology; Judith Butler, Professor, Rhetoric.* 

Whereas, Non-violent political protest engages fundamental rights of free assembly and free speech, and 
Whereas, November 9th efforts by protestors to set up and remain in a temporary encampment near Sproul Hall constitutes non-violent political protest, and 
Whereas, These non-violent actions were met with a brutal and dangerous police response (see, e.g.,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ&feature=share), a response authorized in advance as well as retroactively justified by Chancellor Birgeneau, Executive Vice Chancellor Breslauer and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs LeGrand, and 
Whereas, This is the third time in two years that such police violence has been unleashed upon protesters at Berkeley, with resulting bodily injuries to protestors, student and faculty outrage, a series of expensive lawsuits against the university, a tarnished university image, and a severely compromised climate for free expression on campus; 
Therefore be it Resolved that the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate has lost confidence in the ability of Chancellor Birgeneau, EVC Breslauer and VC LeGrande to respond appropriately to non-violent campus protests, to secure student welfare amidst these protests, to minimize the deployment of force and to respect freedom of speech and assembly on the Berkeley campus. 
Revised Resolution proposed by: Wendy Brown, Professor, Political Science; Barrie Thorne, Professor, Gender and Women’s Studies/Sociology; Judith Butler, Professor, Rhetoric.

Whereas, Non-violent political protest engages fundamental rights of free assembly and free speech, and

Whereas, November 9th efforts by protestors to set up and remain in a temporary encampment near Sproul Hall constitutes non-violent political protest, and

Whereas, These non-violent actions were met with a brutal and dangerous police response (see, e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ&feature=share), a response authorized in advance as well as retroactively justified by Chancellor Birgeneau, Executive Vice Chancellor Breslauer and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs LeGrande, and

Whereas, This is the third time in two years that such police violence has been unleashed upon protesters at Berkeley, with resulting bodily injuries to protestors, student and faculty outrage, a series of expensive lawsuits against the university, a tarnished university image, and a severely compromised climate for free expression on campus;

Therefore be it resolved that the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate:

1. Opposes all violent police responses to non-violent protest, whether that protest is lawful or not.

2. Condemns the UC Berkeley administration’s authorization of violent responses to nonviolent protests over the past two years.

3. Demands that Chancellor Birgeneau, Executive Vice Chancellor Breslauer, and Vice Chancellor LeGrande take responsibility for and repudiate such policing as it occurred over the past two years.

4. Demands that these administrators develop, follow and enforce university policy to respond non-violently to non-violent protests, to secure student welfare amidst these protests, and to minimize the deployment of force and foster free expression and assembly on campus.

Resolution proposed by: David Hollinger, Professor, History, and Thomas 
Laqueur, Professor, History.

The Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate of the University of California
hereby condemns the over-reaction of police to demonstrations on our campus
on November 9; formally alerts the Chancellor and those who report to him that
this incident has greatly diminished confidence in the Campus’s leadership; calls
upon the Chancellor to institute special training for police forces employed on
campus to deal with acts of political expression and civil disobedience in the
University and, more generally, to immediately implement the recommendations
of the Police Review Board (The Brazil Report) as issued on June 14, 2010.

Resolution proposed by: Kurt C. Organista, Professor, Social Welfare

Whereas, nonviolent political protest engages fundamental rights of free
assembly and free speech, and

Whereas, the campus has established time, place, and manner guidelines by
which it encourages such activities, and

Whereas, protesters may sometimes engage in political noncooperation which
includes acts of civil disobedience – including the deliberate, open and peaceful
violation of particular laws, decrees, regulations, and

Whereas, there is a clear chain of command ending with the Chancellor, which
implements training and deployment of police to respond appropriately to
protests, and

Whereas, campuses should exercise restraint in responding to peaceful protests
and seek to resolve the situation through dialogue, and

Whereas, we are outraged by the brutal and dangerous police responses against
members of the University community at UC Berkeley and other campuses,

Therefore be it Resolved that the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate

1) calls upon the Chancellor, EVCP, and Chief of Police to officially
apologize to the campus community for the behavior of the UCPD on Nov.
9, 2011

2) calls for immediate revision of policies and practices to minimize the
danger of excessive use of force by the police, and to better train the police
to employ nonviolent law enforcement that respects the rights of
nonviolent protesters

3) affirms its support for the right of free speech and peaceful protest by all
members of the University community

4) affirms its strong opposition to the State’s disinvestment in higher
education, which is at the root of the student protests.

Resolution proposed by: Brian A. Barsky, Professor, Electrical Engineering and 
Computer Sciences, and Jonathan Simon, Professor, Law.

Whereas, The “right of the people peaceably to assemble” is enshrined in the First
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas, Section 9(a) of Article 9 of the California Constitution establishes that
“the University of California constitutes a public trust”;

Whereas, Demonstrations consisting of both explicit and symbolic speech are a
fundamental part of the public discourse in modern democracies and have been
an important part of many social movements both nationally and internationally;

Whereas, Police violence has been repeatedly perpetrated against peaceful
demonstrators on the Berkeley campus;

Whereas, The repeated incidents of police violence suggest that the
Administration and the UCPD and may have adopted a policy of preemptive use
of force against peaceful demonstrators whom they anticipate may engage in acts
of civil disobedience; and

Whereas, The Administration and UCPD appear to have not followed the
recommendation of the June 14, 2010 Report of the Police Review Board (“Brazil
report”) to clarify the proper lines of authority and approach to non-violent civil
disobedience on the Berkeley campus despite this confusion having been
identified in the Report as a possible source of unnecessary violence;

Be it therefore RESOLVED, that:

1.  It is the sense of the faculty that the physical safety of campus community
members (including police officers), and respect for their rights of political
expression, dictate that police should not be deployed preemptively with riot
weapons and tactics in response to non-violent demonstrations.

2.  The faculty calls upon the Administration to implement the recommendations
of the June 14, 2010 Report of the Police Review Board (“Brazil report”).

3.  The faculty calls upon the Administration to immediately clarify the division of
civilian and police authority over response to campus demonstrations including
requests for mutual aid to outside police forces.

4.  The faculty calls upon the Administration to make public the specific
conditions under which it is prepared to authorize UCPD (as well as other forces
operating under mutual aid) to use weapons and forceful tactics, including but not
limited to batons, pepper spray, and pressure point grips, against demonstrators
engaged in non-violent actions including linking arms and other forms of passive
resistance to arrest.

5.  The faculty calls upon the Administration to announce that it will not authorize
the use of such forceful tactics to prevent or preempt the formation of any
“unlawful assembly” that is composed in substantial part of students, faculty, or
staff, and remains peaceful and non-violent.

6.  The faculty recommends that if a demonstration turns into an unlawful
assembly (for example, an occupation of a building) then the Administration
should engage in dialogue, communication, and negotiation as the primary and
preferred approach.

7.  The faculty recommends that if and when arrests are deemed necessary to
restore core university functions, the Administration not authorize the routine use
of batons, pepper spray or other weapons and forceful tactics without specific
need to respond to violence by arrestees.

8.  The faculty recommends that following any incident in which forcible methods
were used that the Chancellor should convene a public meeting with a minimum
of delay to explain the rationale of the decision to employ them.

9.  The Academic Senate shall establish a Senate Committee on Demonstrations
and Student Actions composed solely of faculty members to consult with the
Administration, UCPD and students.

#UCDavis Academic Senate to vote on opposing ballots expressing confidence and lack of confidence in Chancellor #Katehi #OccupyUCDavis

This message provides notice of two impending ballots, as required by Davis Division Bylaw 17: http://academicsenate.ucdavis.edu/cerj/manual/dd_bylaws.cfm#17-.   You have received this notice as a voting member of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate.  The Davis Division received at least 50 valid signatures with each petition, requiring initiation of a formal notice and electronic ballot.   More information, including the method for gathering pro and con statements and the voting period, will be distributed on January 9, 2012.  The petitions are summarized below:

1) Petition received on December 6, 2011, requests a vote regarding a lack of confidence in the leadership of Chancellor Katehi, with the result of the vote to be communicated to the Board of Regents and UC President.

2) Petition received on December 15, 2011, requests a vote regarding 1) condemnation of both the dispatch of police and use of excessive force in response to non-violent protests on November 18, 2011; 2) opposing violent police response to non-violent protests on campus; 3) demanding that police deployment against protestors be considered only after all reasonable efforts have been exhausted and with direct consultation with Academic Senate leadership; 4) acceptance of Chancellor Katehi's apology; 5) expression of confidence in Chancellor Katehi's leadership and efforts to place UC Davis among the top public universities in the nation.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Nathan Brown calls for #Katehi's Resignation Again #OccupyUCdavis

Professor Nathan Brown of the UC Davis English Department, the first member of the faculty to call for Chancellor Katehi's resignation, recently published another such call in the Davis Enterprise.  He lists an impressive number of individuals and organizations that have joined him in this call. Several commenters note that this only a small minority of the faculty.  They also note that Board of the Davis Faculty Association (of which Brown is a member) called for the Chancellor's resignation without consulting its members and that when it did consult its members, a majority did not support the Board's action. I made similar points about faculty opinion on Katehi and about the DFA in earlier posts.  By the same token, only a minority of the faculty (albeit a larger one) have expressed confidence in Katehi.  Most faculty have not yet taken a public position.  The Academic Senate (the body representing the Faculty) will vote on two ballots--one expressing confidence and the other expressing lack of confidence in the Chancellor in January or February.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

#occupyucdavis protestors are not dirty, drug-addled potential rapists after all!

After some angry e-mails, the UC Davis news service toned down its article portraying protestors occupying Dutton hall as dirty, drug-addled potential rapists. Original article. Revised article.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Weird fashion shoot #occupyucdavis

Link

UC Davis: Protestors are Pigs and Druggies!

The University's official organ, Dateline, ran an inflammatory and unintentionally hilarious article today that belies the Chancellor's pledge to enter into a respectful dialogue with the protestors. It bemoans the costs of cleaning up after the dirty protestors, the inconvenience of staff and students, and employees' fears of sexual assault. My favorite parts are a picture of an empty wine bottle (Barefoot Winery--I guess the 99 percent can't afford Mondavi) and complaints about lingering body odor. Update: UC Davis news service changes its tune.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Some ideas about the struggle to fund Higher Ed in California

Tonight I was at the northern California meeting of the Scholars Strategy Network. A couple of ideas struck me as especially useful. 1. There is a reasonable chance that the Democrats could win a 2/3 majority in the 2012 California legislative elections, making it possible for them to pass tax increases to fund higher education (if pressured enough). 2.Progressive UC faculty and staff should start a PAC to defeat legislators who don't support higher education. 3. The PAC and the student movement should target legislators with universities in their district. 4. The UC administration has a very narrow view of politics. It is focused on lobbying legislators for more funding (and is essentially resigned to failing at that) rather than on leading a political movement that can elect a 2/3 Democratic majority in the legislature. One demand to make of the regents and the embattled chancellors (Birgenau and Katehi) is that they step up and help lead such a movement. Refund California has made a similar demand--that the regents pledge support for a tax increase on the rich to fund higher education.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Strategic Advice from Louis Warren

UC Davis History Professor Louis Warren gives some good advice to the UC student movement. I especially like his point that with the recent redistricting of California, the Democrats may be able to achieve a 2/3 majority in both houses of the legislature in the 2012 election--enabling them to raise taxes to fund education (if pressured enough). This has been impossible up to now because Prop 13 requires a 2/3 majority for raising taxes and Republicans have opposed any and all tax increases. I also like his suggested slogan for approaching legislators (most of whom went to public colleges): "We want the same deal you got!" (an affordable and high quality public education).

California's Direct Democracy Troubles

This is a great piece on the idiocy of ballot initiatives in California. Drop those F-bombs John Burton! Direct Democracy Troubles - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 12/05/11

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Obama's Inequality Speech in Kansas-Wow!

Obama's Inequality Speech in Kansas

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you're on your own” economics if we're serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. (Applause.) We know that it doesn't result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future. We know it doesn't result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that's enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.

Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year. I'm not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars. I'm saying people who make a million dollars every single year. For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6 percent.

Now, this kind of inequality -- a level that we haven't seen since the Great Depression -- hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country. That's why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made. It's also why a recent study showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. (Applause.) It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them, that our elected representatives aren't looking out for the interests of most Americans.

But there's an even more fundamental issue at stake. This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that's at the very heart of America: that this is a place where you can make it if you try. We tell people -- we tell our kids -- that in this country, even if you're born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class. We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. That's why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.

Can Newt Do It?

I'm starting to think Newt might become the nominee: Ed Kilgore: The GOP Establishment Hates Newt. He’s Going To Win Anyway. | The New Republic

Monday, December 12, 2011

Facts?

Via Jonathan Eisen, the Administration's Fact Sheet on the Pepper Spraying annotated by some faculty.

Majority of Davis Faculty Association (DFA) opposes DFA Board's call for Katehi's Resignation

In an earlier post, I noted that the Davis Faculty Association (DFA) Board had called for Chancellor Katehi's resignation the day after the pepper spraying without polling its 145 members (including myself) and that some members felt that it should have done so first. Many members were also upset that the media failed to distinguish between the position of the DFA board and the DFA membership and, even worse, implied that the DFA represented "the faculty" rather than a mere ten percent of the faculty (which is actually represented by the Academic Senate). In my view, both the DFA and the Academic Senate should have disabused the press of this notion. In response to this discontent, the DFA begin surveying its members on November 23 (five days after November 18). And yesterday (three weeks after November 18) the DFA Board released the results: Only 45% of members responded and, of those, the majority opposed the DFA's call for Katehi's resignation.

DFA board chair Scott Shershow's letter reporting the results is below. Shershow reports that the Board's decision to ask for Katehi's resignation was not unanimous. He also notes that three members of the Board have recently resigned and two have been replaced by new members appointed by the Board. At least one of these resignations, that of Board chair (at the time), Bob Rucker, was related to Rucker's opposition to the Board's call for Katehi's resignation. Though Rucker resigned three weeks ago, the Board only informed the membership of this resignation yesterday. And only in the most indirect way: Shershow does not name Rucker as one of the Board members who resigned and does not reveal that his resignation was prompted the DFA statement on Katehi.

None of this is very democratic or transparent, especially when compared with the inspiring example of the Occupy General Assemblies.

----------------------

Letter from DFA Board Chair Scott Shershow

On November 19, 2011, in the immediate aftermath of the pepper-spraying of non-violent UC Davis students protesting tuition increases, the DFA board issued a statement calling for the immediate resignation of Chancellor Katehi, and calling for an end to “the practice of forcibly removing non-violent student, faculty, staff, and community protestors by police.”

http://ucdfa.org/2011/11/19/dfa-board-calls-for-katehis-resignation/

In the last two weeks, we surveyed the DFA membership for their opinions of the board’s action. Sixty-four members responded (out of a total membership of 145). On the first question, regarding our call for an end to the policy of using the UCD police to suppress demonstrators, 58 members approved and 4 did not approve. On the second question, regarding our call for the Chancellor’s resignation, 34 members did not approve, and 29 approved. (A few respondents did not answer both questions.) The opinions expressed in the comment portion of the survey varied widely. Some members expressed enthusiastic support for the Board’s action, praising the DFA for assuming a leadership role in this pressing issue. Some others expressed strong disapproval of the Board. In particular, some members claimed the Board’s decision was “premature,” suggested that the membership ought to have been surveyed first, or noted the fact that some media outlets reported that this was an action of the DFA in general.

Several members asked for more information about the Board’s process. It should be noted that the DFA acts by majority vote of its Board in accordance with the organization’s by-laws. In this specific case, on the Saturday following the pepper spray incident, the Board debated its response via email. A majority voted to release the statement on the DFA website, in response to what we deemed an extremely urgent and quickly-evolving situation.

In making this decision, the Board majority took into strong consideration the initial statement of Chancellor Katehi in which she blamed the protestors for the violence, as well as her second statement in which she acknowledged ordering in the police. We also took into consideration a similar, less publicized event that took place in 2009 where UCD police in riot gear were sent in to Mrak Hall to remove peaceful protestors of tuition increases and faculty and staff furloughs, resulting in several injuries and 52 arrests.

http://www.kcra.com/education/21669598/detail.html

Finally, we were especially mindful of the brutalization of students and faculty at another peaceful demonstration at UC Berkeley nine days earlier. In the wake of this event, it seemed to us that the Chancellor had every reason to anticipate something similar here, and that, under these circumstances, her decision to order armed police onto the campus in the context of a peaceful demonstration was absolutely unacceptable.

The DFA Board’s action, was, to our knowledge, the first explicit statement of faculty solidarity with the students involved, and was portrayed in the initial wave of press reports as representing faculty support for their students. Some reports simply ascribed the statement to “the DFA,” whereas the statement itself clearly notes that it comes from “the board of the DFA.” It should be noted, however, that according to our by-laws, the elected board does have the duty to act for the Association.

The Board has met twice to evaluate developments since its statement on November 19. A majority continues to stand by its initial statement to uphold its support for the student movement in general. We are not encouraged by the Chancellor’s statements and apologies, which appear to have shifted according to the needs of the moment, nor by the revelation of a new Chancellor's "advisory board" filled with corporate CEOs. Chancellor Katehi has already publicly stated that she is fully responsible for the pepper-spraying incident. We agree, and therefore continue to call for her resignation.

DFA board members are elected at a yearly election in the spring, in accordance with the bylaws. Two current members were appointed by the board to fill two vacancies caused by two of three recent resignations. The board wishes to fill the remaining vacancy, and we encourage any member who wishes to help steer future board decisions to nominate him or herself.

Occupy# Strategy

Via John Hall, Stanley Rogouski's insightful assessment of the tactics and strategies of Occupy Wall Street.

Friday, December 9, 2011

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Some new links/information regarding Pepper Spray incident and #UCDavis response

Via Jonathan Eisen's Tree of Life

The Tree of Life: Some new links/information regarding Pepper Spray incident and #UCDavis response

No Confidence Letter from 77 faculty published in Davis Enterprise

And a commenter suggests that signers of the pro and anti Katehi letters should face off in a mean game of dodge ball...


We, the undersigned UC Davis faculty, are compelled by evidence available now to publicly state we have no confidence in the ability of Chancellor Linda Katehi to lead us forward. In our view, the Nov. 18 events and their aftermath have overwhelmed her effectiveness despite her previous accomplishments.

Chancellor Katehi showed poor judgment before the pepper-spray incident by sending the police to remove tents without first personally engaging the Occupy UC Davis students; in so doing, she ignored alternative models for positively moving forward with the activists, as exemplified by actions at Duke and Columbia, or more recently with Occupy San Francisco. She displayed a dangerous ignorance or disregard for the potential for violence given brutal police action against Occupy protests at UC Berkeley, and in Oakland and other cities.

After the incident, following a halting progression of public statements, she claimed to accept responsibility with her words, but in deed distanced herself by directing blame and questions to the police and a vice chancellor. Additionally, the stated rationale to remove the tents (student safety) is belied by more than a week of peaceful, safe encampment.

Finally, the pepper-spray incident has triggered an undeniable international storm of negative discussion and images of the campus and chancellor. This makes her role as chief public spokesperson for the university difficult at best. In particular, we believe she lacks credibility to advocate for the Occupy students’ legitimate concerns (accessible, affordable quality university education without crushing student debt and better post-baccalaureate economic opportunity).

Although we know many of our faculty colleagues continue to back the chancellor while the investigations are under way, we are compelled by the evidence available now and support the pending submission of a petition to the Davis Academic Senate calling for a formal vote of no confidence in her leadership.

Signatures

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Unanswered Questions in the Pepper-Spraying Incident

Keith Bradnam has a nice list.

Precarious Citizenship and the Fight for Public Education

Evelyn Nakano Glenn, UC-Berkeley
Professor of Ethnic and Asian American Studies & former President of the American Sociological Association (2010)

Thursday, December 8, 2011, 10:30-12:00
Andrews Conference Room, SS&H 2203
Refreshments starting from 10:00am
RSVP: mudge@ucdavis.edu

Under neoliberalism, economic precarity has become widespread, making "citizenship" (broadly defined) precarious for major segments of the population. Precarity of substantive rights can and has spurred counter movements that assert alternative more expansive concepts of belonging—including the contemporary fight for public education in California.

Professor Glenn's talk will deal with some of the most pressing issues in today's politics that are now so visible right here on the UC-Davis campus: economic insecurity, citizenship struggles, new social movements and the future of public education. Please join us!

Brief bio:
Evelyn Nakano Glenn is Professor of Gender & Women's Studies and Ethnic Studies and Founding Director of the Center for Race and Gender at the University of California, Berkeley. She served as President of the American Sociological Association in 2009-10. She is the author of Forced to Care: Race, Gender and Coercive Labor (Harvard University Press, 2010); Shades of Difference: Why Skin Color Matters (Stanford University Press, 2009) and Unequal Freedom, How Race and Gender Shaped American Citizenship and Labor (Harvard University Press, 2002). Professor Glenn was presented with the 2005 Jessie Bernard Award by the American Sociological Association for "scholarly work that has enlarged the horizons of sociology to encompass fully the role of women in society." She was named the 2007 Feminist Lecturer by the Sociologists for Women in Society.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Chancellor Katehi and the Faculty

One noteworthy aspect of Tuesday’s Town Hall meeting with Faculty and Staff was that many of the speakers expressed support for Chancellor Katehi and rejected calls for her resignation. Entomology Professor Walter Leal presented an open letter to that effect, which was signed by over 200 faculty members and published in the Davis Enterprise this morning.

Prior to Tuesday, many news accounts claimed that the UC Davis Faculty sought Chancellor Katehi’s resignation. In fact, only some of the faculty, and far less than the majority, have made such demands—the English Department (40 members), some members of the Physics department (31 of 50), and the 11-member Board of the Davis Faculty Association (DFA). This amounts to approximately 80 faculty out of the approximately 1400 faculty at UC Davis. The DFA does not represent the whole faculty. It is a voluntary membership organization of approximately 120 members (less than 10 percent of the faculty). Few, if any, news accounts noted this--most assumed or implied that the DFA represented the entire faculty. Moreover, the Board’s statement represented the views of the Board only (and was not unanimous)—the membership was not polled. Most news accounts failed to distinguish between the position of the association’s Board and that of its members. (I am a member of the association, but do not support calls for the Chancellor’s resignation at this time). On Wednesday, November 23 (5 days after the pepper spray incident), the DFA finally polled its members. This poll will be complete on December 7. Some DFA members have questioned the Board’s haste in calling for the Chancellor's resignation, and its failure to consult the DFA members first.

The body that does represent the entire faculty is the Academic Senate. Its Representative Assembly will hold a special meeting with Katehi in the Mondavi Center tomorrow morning. Some faculty members are circulating a letter to the chair of the Academic Senate calling for a vote of “no confidence” in Katehi. Fifty signatures are required for such a vote to occur before February (the next regularly scheduled meeting of the faculty Senate). And even if they get the signatures (which they probably will), the vote will not take place until January. I am one of the signatories, not because I am ready to vote for the motion, but because I would like there to be a vote.

Finally, several departments (including mine) have issued statements condemning the use of pepper spray and asking for an investigation, but stopping short of demanding Katehi’s resignation at this time.

UPDATE: A colleague and a student suggested that I clarify my position on the no-confidence resolution because it seems contradictory.

Petition for vote of no-confidence in Chancellor Katehi

The following petition is currently being circulated among the faculty. It needs 50 signatures for the vote to occur prior to the February meeting of the Representative Assembly of the Academic Senate. I have decided to sign the petition. I am not sure how I will vote when the time comes (that will depend on the pending investigations) but I would like the vote to occur.
______________________________

Professor Linda Bisson, Chair
Davis Division of the Academic Senate

Dear Chair Bisson;

The undersigned members of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate hereby call on you to put the following motion of non-confidence in the leadership of the Chancellor to a vote of the entire membership of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate.

Motion: In light of the events on the quadrangle of the UC Davis campus on the afternoon of Friday November 18, 2011, in light of Chancellor Linda’s Katehi’s email to faculty of November 18 in which she admitted that she had ordered the police to take action against the students who were demonstrating on the quadrangle and said that she had had “no option” but to proceed in this way, and in light of the failure of Chancellor Katehi to act effectively to resolve the resulting crisis in the intervening days,

Be it therefore resolved that the Davis Division of the Senate of the University of California lacks confidence in the leadership of Chancellor Katehi, and

Be it also resolved that the result of the vote on this motion be communicated to the Board of Regents and the President of the University of California.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We realize that Senate rules would require delaying the vote on this motion until sometime in the middle of January.

Chancellor Birgeneau rebuked by UC Berkeley Academic Senate

The UC Berkeley Academic Senate delivered a stinging rebuke to Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau for ordering police to remove Occupy Cal demonstrators from the front of Sproul Hall on Nov. 9.

A packed gathering of faculty members passed a bloc of four resolutions condemning the administration. The stern language of the resolutions was nothing compared with the harshness of the speeches delivered during the hour-and-45-minute special session Monday afternoon called to discuss the role of protests at UC Berkeley. The attacks on Birgeneau were more personal and more pointed than I've ever heard leveled against a chancellor by his colleagues in my 28 years as a UC professor. Not a single soul spoke to defend him.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/30/EDUS1M6A15.DTL#ixzz1fKrmkvno