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.

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.

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.

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.

Letter from Chair of Davis Division of the Faculty Senate, Linda F. Bisson

Dear Colleagues:

Many of you have asked me to issue a preliminary assessment of the events occurring on November 18, 2011, and to describe the actions taken to date by me and Executive Council. I know I have asked extraordinary patience of you while I undertake the job that I was appointed to do as your Chair of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate. As a scientist it is not in my nature to get ahead of the data; as a faculty member I put the students first. When I saw the first video of the brutality on the quad I felt as if I had been stabbed in the heart, a feeling I know the majority of you share.
My first communication to the Chancellor on Friday, November 18th was to make sure the charges against the students would be dropped and all medical bills would be covered; she had already made the decision to do so. My second immediate demand was that those directly involved be placed on leave. I learned that although she had requested this be done she has more limited authority than I thought over our police force. Finally, I asked that the police presence on or around the quad be diminished and if necessary I would have faculty patrol the quad to ensure the safety of our students. The members of Executive Council were prepared to be there themselves and to contact their committee members and faculties to back up this position. I had immediate responses from graduate and professional school students to also patrol the quad. The Chancellor assured me that this would not be necessary. Executive Council members periodically went by the encampment once it was reestablished to check on the wellbeing of the students. Executive Council met with the students of the Occupy movement on Wednesday, November 23rd to ask if they felt safe and if there was anything we could do to make them feel safer. They said they felt safe as long as the police were kept away.

Many of you have sent me emails about the man in the grey suit filming the crowd on November 18th with concerns about the intent of that filming. I have asked the Chancellor and she has told me that she does not know who that individual is nor why he was filming the crowd and appeared to be with the police. I will continue to press on this issue.

Second, during the tragedy on the quad we were holding an Executive Council meeting with the Chancellor. I had not been in the loop on decisions that were being made so I had as an agenda item a discussion of her intentions with respect to the Occupy movement and student demonstrations. We learned that she had already called for the tents to be removed and that this was happening as we were being told of her decision. There was no consultation with the Senate regarding this decision. She assured us at that time that although the police had been told to remove the tents as is apparently a UC policy, she had clearly instructed them to do it peacefully and without force unless physically threatened or attacked. Further the reasons for the order to remove the tents were health and safety related, due to poor sanitation practices. As a microbiologist, who teaches sanitation, I know this is indeed a problem. We registered our opposition to the use of excessive force probably just as it was happening. During the meeting, the Chancellor was seated next to me and I know she did not receive any communication from the field. She did get called to the hallway and came back and her report of what had happened was identical to the statement that she subsequently made to the press and that you all have heard and that turned out to be egregiously incorrect as evidenced by the videos released by the press. When I asked the Chancellor about this the next day, she said she had repeated what she had been told by her staff concerning the events of the quad, and it was not until later that she saw the videos released by the press herself. Some Executive Council members thought the clearing of the Occupy movement was timed deliberately during our meeting to prevent any meaningful consultation; others viewed it as simply unfortunate timing. As a consequence, the tenor of my conversations with the Chancellor has been quite different from that of the main campus and I will give a full report at the Representative Assembly meeting.

Third, I started investigating the culture and origin of our repressive policies. I received immediate assistance from the systemwide office of the Academic Senate in sourcing these policies. Bob Anderson called for an emergency teleconference meeting of Academic Council in which I participated. I believe our polices are historic, many a legacy of the incident involving the active shooter at Virginia Tech., and the sharp criticism in the press of campus police being “mall cops” at that time. I know changes were mandated by both state and local governments after that event. I personally do not think one should send inexperienced and untrained individuals against an active shooter. However, I also do not think one should send a SWAT team to issue citations for minor violations.

Executive Council has taken three actions: First, to issue our statement that many have thought was weak but that reflected a commitment to get the facts first. We called for an independent investigation into the events on the quad and I advised the Chancellor to abandon her plans for formation of a taskforce as it would likely not appear credible. Further, if an administrative task force was necessary I believed it should be formed by someone else. We continually emphasized the need for independence of the task force. The result of this request was the decision by the Office of the President to conduct the administrative inquiry. Second, we have formed our own Special Committee to examine the events leading up to the actions taken on the quad and also to review our policies, procedures, culture and climate to make strong recommendations for change. I have read the Brazil report issued by the Police Review Board of UCB in 2010 after an incident in 2009 and agree with most of their recommendations that obviously have not been adopted (http://administration.berkeley.edu/prb/6-14-10_prb-report.pdf). Our Special Committee may have different or additional recommendations of its own. I will do everything that I can to make sure our report is not ignored. Provost/Executive Vice President Pitts has assured me personally that policies will change. Third, I called for a special meeting of the Representative Assembly. I report directly to the Representative Assembly and will have more to say on Friday when we meet. Representative Assembly meetings are public and open to all faculty. The Chancellor will be there. We will hold the meeting in the Mondavi Center to allow for full attendance by the faculty. Executive Council intends to introduce a resolution at that meeting commending our students. I hope to have the text of that resolution finalized and out to all departments and their Representative Assembly members prior to the meeting on Friday.

I am continuing to look into the events of November 18th, and will issue periodic updates to the faculty. I have found many things that I would like to propose that we change, but ask for your continued patience as I am still uncovering new information.

Sincerely,

Linda F. Bisson, Chair
Davis Division of the Academic Senate
Professor: Viticulture and Enology