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

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.

Musings From the Middle Ground

Nickolas Perrone, a grad student in the UC Davis History Department, offers some ideas about engaging students who are deeply concerned about the fate of the university but don't spend their free time reading Fanon.

Town Hall Meeting on UC System protest policing, February 10

The UC Office of the President is holding a Town hall meeting at UC Davis on protest policing in the UC System on Friday February 10 from 4 to 6 p.m. at the Conference Center Ballroom, adjacent to the Vanderhoef Quad at the campus’s south entry.

Last November, President Mark G. Yudof appointed UC General Counsel Charles Robinson and UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Christopher Edley Jr. to lead a systemwide examination of police protocols and policies as they apply to protests at all UC campuses.  The meeting is part of this examination.

We Want The Same Deal You Got!

UC Davis history professor Louis Warren's A New Campus Contract provides a history of declining funding for the University of California and a strategy for restoring it.  It revolves around reminding California taxpayers, and especially legislators, that they benefited from affordable education when they were young but are now unwilling to pay for the next generation.  He argues that students should tell legislators--"We want the same deal that you got!"

I think Warren's talk at a recent teach-in was more powerful than this piece.  But it's good to have this in print.

Higher Education as a Public Good

Recently my colleagues Laura Grindstaff and John R. Hall wrote excellent pieces on the marketization and privatization of the UC System and on the necessity of convincing Americans that higher education is a public good.

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.

Why the Eggheads were Pepper-Sprayed #OccupyUCDavis #UCD #UCDavis

This post from the Occupy UC Davis web site explains why the eggheads were pepper sprayed: "for their own safety."

UC Davis Administration Offers Free Therapy to Protestors #OccupyUCDavis #UCD #UCDavis

An excellent post by Crank at Bicycle Barricade, analyzes the therapeutic discourse of the UC Davis Administration on the events of November 18. 

"Since that date, UC Davis administration has deployed a therapeutic discourse which seeks to shift the focus from accountability (negatively construed as “blame”) to healing and moving forward."

UC Davis Eggheads Pepper-Sprayed #OccupyUCDavis #UCDavis

Robert Arneson's egghead sculptures at UC Davis were pepper-sprayed Sunday night.  They have since been cleaned.  More pictures.

“Bob Arneson believed that art should interact with everyday life. He wanted art that regular people would understand and enjoy. Maybe that's why the Eggheads are the most photographed objects on campus.” — Nelson Art Gallery Director Renny Pritikin

UC Davis Faculty to vote on Katehi February 7 #UCDavis #OccupyUCDavis #Katehi

The UC Davis Academic Senate today released the full text of three proposed resolutions about Chancellor Katehi and the events of November 18.  On February 7, members of the faculty will receive on-line ballots and statements supporting and opposing the resolutions.  The resolutions are the same as those in my earlier posts: A expresses a lack of confidence in Katehi, B condemns police violence against protestors and expresses confidence in Katehi.  C condemns police violence against protestors.   One difference is that Resolution B now includes a long list of "whereas" statements.  Supporters of Resolution A (those wishing to express "no confidence" in Chancellor Katehi) introduced Resolution C in order to ensure that Resolution B did not syphon off support for their resolution by condemning police violence.  I analyzed the rationales and prospects of these resolutions here.  You can comment on the resolutions and see the list of signatories here. 

Resolution A

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 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.

Resolution B

Whereas non-violent political protest, free assembly, and free speech are constitutional rights valued at the UC Davis,

And whereas the response of the UC Davis Police Department to peaceful protestors on November 18, 2011 was appalling,  

And whereas in the UC Davis culture it is customary for representative(s) from the highest levels of the administration to engage in direct dialogue with demonstrators, 

And whereas prior to November 18, 2011 Chancellor Linda Katehi worked diligently to elevate the national and international stature of the Davis campus,

And whereas the presence of an accomplished scholar at the top post has helped UC Davis attract and retain outstanding scholars, including faculty members serving at the highest levels of administration,

And whereas in the last two years, Chancellor Linda Katehi developed a bold plan for campus growth that includes an aggressive fund-raising campaign that will alleviate the burden imposed by ever decreasing state financial support,

And whereas Chancellor Linda Katehi apologized to University community for the events of November 18, 2011,

And whereas Chancellor Linda Katehi publically stated that she will ensure that such events do not recur,

And whereas the events of November 18 transformed Linda Katehi into a Chancellor who engages in a full and open dialogue with students, staff, and faculty,

And whereas Chancellor Katehi moved expeditiously to replace the flawed communications in the two days following the events with a campus-wide dialogue through a series of town hall meetings with students, staff, and faculty,

And whereas a Chancellor with first-hand experience of the horrific events of November 18, 2011 is better qualified to deal with its aftermath,

And whereas dispatching police before engaging in a direct dialogue with protesters, while running counter to the UC Davis culture, does not outweigh the Chancellor Katehi’s impeccable performance of all her other duties,

And whereas Chancellor Katehi’s resignation would have devastating effects on the moral and academic standing of the campus, thereby making it highly unlikely that UC Davis could attract a Chancellor of her stature,

And whereas it is time to promote a constructive healing process rather than risk more harm by pressuring the Chancellor to resign:

Be it therefore resolved that the Davis Division of the Academic Senate:

1. Condemns both the dispatch of police in response to non-violent protests and the use of excessive force that led to the deplorable pepper-spraying events of November 18, 2011.
2. Opposes all violent police responses to non-violent protests on campus.
3. Demands that police deployment against protesters be considered only after all reasonable administrative efforts to bridge differences have been exhausted, including direct consultation with the leadership of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate.
4. Accepts Chancellor Linda Katehi’s good faith apology.
5. Expresses confidence in Chancellor Linda Katehi’s leadership and efforts to place UC Davis among the top 5 public universities in the nation.

Resolution C

Be it resolved that that the Davis Division of the Senate of the University of California hereby

(1) condemns both the dispatch of police and use of excessive force in response to non-violent protests on November 18, 2011; 

(2) opposes violent police response to non-violent protests on campus; 

(3) demands that police deployment against protestors be considered only after all reasonable efforts have been exhausted and with direct consultation with Academic Senate leadership.

New Blog: UC Faculty Supporting Students #UCDavis #OccupyUCDavis

A new blog by UC Davis Faculty (where I am posting occasionally):

"We believe that public education is the cornerstone of democracy. We are concerned about education disappearing as a shared public good. We are UC Davis faculty committed to advocating and supporting access to higher education, galvanized by Nov. 18th.

The goals of this website are:

1) aggregate and disseminate information related to Nov. 18th (pepper-spraying at UC Davis),

2) collect the voices and actions of faculty related to Nov. 18th and larger struggles around privatization and decline in public funding for UC and higher education more broadly."

College Credit for Occupiers! #UCDavis #OccupyUCDavis

UC Davis Professors Julie Wyman (Technocultural Studies) and Julie Sze (American Studies) are offering courses this winter for students involved or interested in the Occupy movement or the anti-UC Privatization movement.

Julie Wyman, Technocultural Studies 198: Documenting the Movement, Part One: Building an Archive

This is a 2 unit directed group study course in winter 2012 that allows students to produce an archive of footage, audio, photographs, and media coverage of the student movement on campus preceding, during, and following the recent student protest movement on campus. 

Students will earn credits for gathering, digitizing, and organizing materials, obtaining releases and ownership information where possible, and also beginning to disseminate and edit this media. The end result of this quarter will be a shared public archive of media - for current and future students, faculty, and researchers. 

We will be discussing and formulating a longer-term project of creating a longer documentary film and/or a collection of short student films that look in depth at this moment, through many modalities (ie experimental, narrative, and longer form documentary). In addition to journalistic reporting on events that have transpired, students will be encouraged to  utilize the material they collect and organize with a larger-scope and more artistic approach. 

During Spring 2012, students in TCS 104: Documentary Production - will be using this archive to create original short pieces that tell a broader story of our campus. In spring 2012, there will also be an opportunity for further independent study work for students who've already taken TCS 104 but would like to continue working with this material for course credit.

The course will meet as a group bi-weekly (every other week) on Thursday afternoon - 4:30 - 5:40 pm, and will involve lab work and research activities on a weekly basis. Students should expect to spend an average of (at least) 5 hours/ week on this course. 

Julie Sze, American Studies 198: Occupy Your Education!

This is a 2 unit directed group study course in winter 2012 that allows students interested or already involved in student activism to get course credit to support your learning on activism on UC privatization and Occupy movements

Rather than prescribe the topics and activities, each student will construct their own plan in conjunction with the instructor, outlining your particular learning objectives and activities for the quarter.

 Here are some ideas (preliminary list only):

• Produce social media/ regular thoughtful blog posting
• Do photo/ video documentary micro-projects
• Create/ disseminate a reading list on a specific theme (i.e. the history of the CA Master Plan, Prop. 13, privatization in the UC, etc)
• Create teaching curriculum (i.e. how to teach the crisis to different groups)

Students will earn credits for constructing your own learning plan, completing the activities specified in your specific plan, and regular meetings with the instructor. You are required to meet with the instructor, either on a one-on-one basis, or during the group bi-weekly meetings on Thursday mornings 11-12 (beginning 1/26- first week in my office). Students should expect to spend an average of (at least) 4 hours/ week on this course.

Instructor:

Julie Sze, Associate Professor Director of American Studies

Email at jsze@ucdavis.edu
http://ams.ucdavis.edu/~jsze/

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.” 

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.