The Political Context of the March 5 Rally in Sacramento

My speech at the March 1 Rally at UC Davis:


Last time I gave a speech at a rally, as a graduate student, I just winged it and it didn’t go so well--so today I wrote some things down.  I want to talk mainly about the political situation surrounding public education and some new openings in the political context.

Since I arrived here a decade ago, I’ve watched the California legislature and Governors Davis, Schwarzenegger and Brown systematically de-fund the greatest public university system in the world.  Meanwhile, the university has tried to balance its books on the backs of the students.

Over those ten years, many of us (students, faculty, staff and sometimes administrators) have organized, lobbied and protested but the cuts have just kept coming.  In the last three years, the Great Recession has made California’s budget crisis even worse, the cuts have been deeper, and the tuition increases have been just ridiculous.

Part of the problem is Prop 13, the 1978 ballot initiative that required a 2/3 supermajority for any increase in California’s taxes.  This allowed a minority of Republican legislators to hold a blue state hostage to their anti-tax, anti-government, anti-equality agenda and forced us into a budget crisis.  Unfortunately, Californians seemed in no mood to repeal Prop 13 despite the deterioration of California’s public services (and especially its schools).  And any attempt at repeal would certainly be countered by a massive corporate advertising blitz.

It’s a bleak picture.  But lately things are looking up a bit. The Democrats are currently two seats away from a 2/3 supermajority in both the Senate and Assembly and the November election may allow them to achieve it.  In 2008, Californians gave a citizen’s commission (rather than the legislature) the power to draw legislative districts.  Under these new districts, the Democrats will most likely pick up enough seats in the State Senate and MAY be able to do so in the State Assembly.  Two of the closest Assembly races are local.  The 8^th District in East Sacramento County where three Democrats face off against two Republicans and the 9^th district in Elk Grove/Lodi where UC Davis Med School Professor Dr. Richard Pan faces off against two Republicans.  The top two vote getters in the June 5 primary will go on to the November election.

Another development is both hopeful and terrifying.  Governor Brown has placed a referendum on the November ballot to temporarily raise income taxes for the wealthy and sales taxes for everyone.  If the measure passes, he promises an increase for higher education of 4 percent per year for three years.  But if it fails, more cuts.  The measure appears to have the support of a slim majority of the voters at this moment, but only if two similar initiatives are removed from the ballot.

If the Democrats do win a supermajority, the battle to restore UC funding will still be at the beginning.  Democratic legislators, like most politicians, are cowards and many have bought into the Republican argument that tax increases retard economic growth.  We will need to pressure them hard--both during and after the election.  The Governor’s commitment to higher education is also suspect.

We also must pressure the UC and UC Davis Administrations.  Unfortunately, the administration has a very narrow view of politics. It is resigned to meekly lobbying legislators for funding, failing miserably, and then raising tuition.  It has not yet committed to campaigning for a new legislative majority that can re-fund the UC System and forcing that majority to do so.  We must demand such a commitment from the regents, UC President Mark Yudof, and our Chancellor (who happens to be on the defensive right now). 

The protests have been making a difference.  They caused Yudof and the regents to back off the latest round of tuition increases, for the moment.  And 74% of Californians now believe that state funding for higher education is inadequate.  Unfortunately, only 45% are willing to pay higher taxes to restore funding. 

We need to help Californians understand that new revenues will be necessary if we hope to preserve affordable higher education.  We also need to convince them that the benefits of affordable higher education do not just go to individual students but to all the lives they touch. Affordable public education helps Californians to live more prosperous, healthy and meaningful lives, it helps them understand and participate in their democracy, it promotes social mobility and equality of opportunity, and it promotes economic and cultural growth.

The occupy movement has so far remained non-partisan and non-electoral in order to avoid being co-opted by the Democrats and in order to seek deeper levels of change than simply electing a new slate of legislators beholden to corporate campaign contributions. 

That’s probably wise for occupy, but the movement to defend higher education pre-dates occupy and is bigger than occupy.  There are roles and responsibilities for all of us. 

As a movement, we must work at all levels—though not everyone must work at every level—protesting, changing public opinion, lobbying elected officials, and winning elections.  At this moment, we have a political opening—Let’s use it.

I want to end with the names of three websites that I think are especially useful (just google them): ReFund California, Remaking the University, and Fight for your Education.  I also have links to all of these on my blog: after-dinner critic.

A New Quarter Begins at UC Davis #occupyUCDavis #UCDavis #Katehi

Here is an update on the UC Davis situation that I wrote with Sara Augusto (a Ph.D. Candidate in my department) for Dissent's blog.  It discusses the positions of supporters and opponents of Katehi, as well as Katehi's interactions with students in the aftermath of November 18th.

Will UC Davis Faculty Vote No Confidence in the Chancellor? #OccupyUCDavis #UCDavis #Katehi

In January, members of the UC Davis Academic Senate (i.e. the entire faculty) will vote on the following three resolutions related to the November 18 pepper spray incident:

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.” 

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.