A) “lack of confidence in the
leadership of Chancellor Katehi”
B) “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.”
C)
Resolution B PLUS “acceptance of Chancellor Katehi's apology” and “expression
of confidence in Chancellor Katehi's leadership and efforts to place UC Davis
among the top public universities in the nation.”
More
details about the voting procedure and the timing of the vote will become
available on January 9. Proponents and
opponents of the resolutions will have an opportunity to circulate statements
of their position.
Many faculty who support the no confidence resolution hope that it
will lead to the Chancellor’s resignation or removal. The case for resignation has been made most
prominently by English Professor Nathan Brown, immediately after the event and more
recently. Brown argues that police
violence against student protestors was not “a mistake” but a deliberate, and
repeated, tactic for suppressing the political content of the
protests—opposition to the privatization of the UC (the growing orientation of the university to business and market logics and the notion that education is a private rather than a public good). He notes that that the Chancellor has accepted
“full responsibility” for the events of November 18 and argues that this
requires her to step down. The Physics
department letter argues that sending the police should have been a last resort in
light of police violence at other Occupy protests, that sending the police
after only one day of encampment violated the commitment to civility in the UC
Davis “principles of community,” and that the Chancellor’s response in the
aftermath of November 18 has not restored trust in her leadership. A faculty letter organized by Physics Professor Daniel Cox argues that the Chancellor “displayed a dangerous ignorance or
disregard for the potential for violence,” claimed responsibility while trying
to shift it to her subordinates, and lacks credibility to advocate for the
students’ legitimate concerns about affordable education and economic
opportunities after graduation.
Opponents of the no-confidence resolution have made several
arguments. Law School Dean Kevin Johnson
argues that out of respect for due process no action should be taken until the
investigations have run their course. A faculty statement organized by Entomology
Professor Walter Leal expresses support for the Chancellor without making much
of an argument. Daniel Melters, a graduate student in plant biology, argues that
the Chancellor performed well prior to November 18 and should stay in office despite her poor performance on that day and afterwards. And the feminist web site, The New Agenda, argues that the
Chancellor is being scapegoated because she is a woman.
Many faculty members have told me that although they are
appalled by the Chancellor’s decisions on November 18 and her performance
afterwards, they believe that the anti-privatization movement at UC Davis will be more successful against a contrite and compliant Chancellor than against a new one appointed by UC
President (and privatization proponent) Mark Yudof. In other words, her replacement could be
worse. I share this view but am willing
to be convinced otherwise. In addition, this logic becomes more powerful in the presence of a credible drive to obtain Katehi’s resignation.
Some faculty (most notably, Walter Leal) have argued that the
focus on Katehi is distracting from the “real” issue—tuition hikes. But others argue that the “real” issue is
privatization and the repression of free speech by the 99 percent.
For excellent statements on these issues see Christopher Newfield, Wendy Brown, and Robert Reich.
I signed the petition seeking a vote of lack of confidence in the Chancellor because I wanted to make sure that she felt strong pressure to make things right. At the same time, I am not yet
sure how I will vote given my point above about the possibility that a new Chancellor might be even more committed to privatization. I think the
Chancellor's decision to send the police to the quad was a grave
mistake--especially given police violence at other Occupy events and especially
the beating of students and faculty one week before at UC Berkeley. I also think the Chancellor's performance in
the aftermath of November 18 leaves much to be desired. Her initial statement was terrible. It attempted to justify the decision, claimed
that there was "no other option" and showed no remorse for the events
of that day. The Chancellor has now
stated that she had not seen the video before she sent out the first letter and
that she instructed the police not to remove the students or use force. She has apologized and pledged to seek
dialogue with the protestors and the rest of the university community. She
has attended a lot of meetings. She showed
courage in addressing the rally on the quad on November 21 but the various town
hall meetings have been disappointing. At these meetings, speakers were chosen
by lottery, ensuring that Katehi’s most prepared, articulate and passionate
critics were kept off the mike (except when they ignored the lottery—as some
did). Speakers were also required to
limit their comments to two minutes while the Chancellor took as much time as
she wanted to reply. Even more
disappointing, the Chancellor has declared that she can no longer discuss the
specific details of November 18 because there are investigations under way--yet
she has freely discussed such details when doing so was to her advantage (for
example, stating that she instructed the police not to use force). The
administration also released a fact sheet that showed the same tone deafness as the Chancellor's initial statement, and the UC Davis
house organ, Dateline, published an
inflammatory article on the damage done by the protestors at Dutton Hall. This article was later toned down after faculty complained.
It will be interesting to see what happens with the faculty
vote. Unfortunately, the press and most
of the public are under the false impression that most faculty want Katehi to
resign, and they may end up disappointed. In fact, most faculty have not
stated their views on the issue. Out of
1400 faculty only about 400 have taken a public position. See Walter Leal and James Carey and myself (here and here) on this point. If I had to bet, I would wager that the no
confidence resolution will fail—though much will depend on the outcome of the
investigations and the quality of the arguments for and against the measure. And even if the no-confidence resolution passes
there is no guarantee that Katehi, Yudof or the Regents will heed it. I dread the world's reaction to the headline: “UC Davis Faculty Changes Mind; Supports Pepper-Spray Chancellor.”
Had you read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/uc-davis-protests_b_1103956.html
ReplyDelete