Showing posts with label Davis Faculty Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Davis Faculty Association. Show all posts

Monday, March 5, 2012

Davis Faculty Association's Critique of the Administration's New Demonstration Policies #occupyucdavis

Dear Provost Hexter and Vice Chancellor Meyer:

I write on behalf of the Davis Faculty Association in consultation with its board to raise several serious objections to the “Demonstration Management Principles and Policies” outlined in your email to the UC Davis community on March 1, 2012.  We particularly wish to raise the following three points:

1.  The first of your principles states that “The campus's efforts to manage these situations have been, and are, guided by patience and restraint.”  We find such an assertion to be demonstrably untrue, at least with regard to the first clause. Surely you do not mean to suggest, for example, that the pepper-spray incident itself was handled with patience and restraint.

2.  We find it unacceptable that you elected to introduce these new principles just prior to the long-delayed release of the Reynoso report on Tuesday.  Surely the faculty should at least be allowed to see and digest this report about the pepper-spray incident before they are given, or are asked to accept, any new principles for dealing with precisely such situations.  In our view, you are insulting the very process initiated by the administration — the process that was so often declared to be necessary before any judgment of the Chancellor’s responsibility for these events — by introducing these principles just prior to the release of the Reynoso report.

3.  Your letter fails even to mention, and indeed, seems pointedly to ignore, the recently-passed Senate resolution that "demands that police deployment against protestors be considered only after all reasonable efforts have been exhausted and with direct consultation with Academic Senate leadership." You state that "campus police may be required to help respond to or resolve emergency situations." This statement does not make clear that you intend to account for and include the specific recommendation of the Senate resolution in the structure of the administration's decision-making process.

In short, the board of the DFA believes that the principles outlined in your letter are unacceptable, and that they represent an attempt to bypass and ignore the lessons of our recent history.

We respectfully request a specific response to each of the three points detailed above.  We have also decided to make this an open letter: we are sending a copy of it (and any response you care to offer) to our membership, and are also posting it on our website.

Sincerely,
Scott C. Shershow
Professor of English
Chair, Davis Faculty Association




The Administration's Policy


Dear UC Davis Community,

As Occupy activities continue nationally and locally, some of you have expressed interest in knowing more about our approach to managing campus protests.

We're writing to update you on this and the anticipated release of a report from the Reynoso Task Force, which has been conducting an inquiry into the pepper spraying of students last November 18 during a demonstration on the Quad.

The Task Force has indicated that it hopes to unveil the report and invite input at a public forum on our campus on March 6. Further details will be provided soon. Task force update from Justice Reynoso can be viewed at:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/27156

Meanwhile, since classes resumed in January there has been a brief occupation of the former Cross Cultural Center; placement of tents on the Quad; sustained efforts by a small group of demonstrators to deny access to employees and customers to the U.S. Bank office in Memorial Union; and, most recently, disruption of a lecture featuring Israeli soldiers.

Here are the principles underlying our efforts to protect lawful freedom of expression:

*  The campus's efforts to manage these situations have been, and are, guided by patience and restraint.

*  When protesters' actions exceed established guidelines for protected free speech, we are seeking to engage and listen to them while explaining the potential implications of their actions. At the former Cross Cultural Center, for example, this approach facilitated a peaceful end to a potentially divisive situation. To view the established guidelines for protected free speech please see:
http://news.ucdavis.edu/download/Rights_and_Responsibilities_Re_Peaceful_Protest-2.1.12.pdf

*  We have formed engagement teams to visit protest sites and communicate directly with protesters. At the bank, we have consistently and persistently conveyed to demonstrators that they are violating campus and state regulations by denying access to customers and bank staff, and that they are subject to campus disciplinary and criminal misdemeanor sanctions. You can view information about how UC Davis has conveyed this information (UC Davis pursues legal and campus process for bank blockers) at:
http://dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.php?id=13890

*  We will communicate similarly with any individuals participating in occupation activities on the Quad or elsewhere on campus, recognizing that campus police may be required to help respond to or resolve emergency situations.

*  We will continue to monitor these situations and will take action as necessary to ensure that all members of our campus community can practice their First Amendment rights while also permitting the ongoing operations of the university's teaching, research, and public service functions.

For many, these are difficult times. As a community, we respect the passion and energy of those seeking to create constructive economic and social change. We hope that participants in campus will respect the rights of community members to freely engage in academic, professional and personal pursuits.

Sincerely,

Ralph J. Hexter
Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor

John A. Meyer
Vice Chancellor-Administrative and Resource Management

Monday, December 12, 2011

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.

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.