2011-11-19 15:13:17 Where is Surge II?
- It's on Hutchison a little west of the Silo. -ChrisDietrich
- Here it is on the campus map. - KenjiYamada
- people need to human mic over the politically correct announcement that surely will occur Daubert
- I think in the interests of respecting the dialogue and winning public goodwill, it would be better to let the announcement be made and use any official opportunities for public input, resorting to shouting over the official talk only if the channels provided aren't sufficient for a robust sample of public opinion to be expressed. - KenjiYamada
- I agree with Kenji. The human mic should be used as a communication tool, not as a weapon. We have the world's attention; let's show them that we deserve it. —BarnabasTruman
- Well said, Barnabas. I took the liberty of putting your last sentence in bold. It's a great slogan in both form and content. - KenjiYamada
2011-11-19 19:20:25 Just left the protest, dead phone and the need to prepare for work before my shift required it. It was peaceful for the most part, however aside from Katehi receiving making the announcement that she will appear at the general assembly on Monday to make an announcement (after receiving a call from the regents), not much occurred. I will write in further detail later on... For those interested, 5 major news corporataions are at Surge II at present and there is a live streaming video of the action on Ustream under the name ChrisGomezone (or ChrisGomez1) —Wes-P
2011-11-19 19:38:16 Katehi claims she was not afraid, but at one point her representatives came out of the building and stated she refused to leave for fear of her safety due to the large number of people present (nearly 800 by the time I left, just minutes before it ended, apparently). Sh would only speak to representatives from the International Graduate Student Ministry claiming all others to be too unruly to deal with... At one point, when she initially prepared to leave the site an hour and a half before actually leaving.. she approached the door, looked at the gathering crowd and stated "this is absurd". Signatures to the petition for her resignation increased by nearly 7000 votes between 4 pm and 7 pm, ending at just over 12,000 by the time it was over. —Wes-P
- She seems to see protesters as dangerous enemies rather than as partners in making a better university. Perhaps that is the root of the whole problem. —CovertProfessor
2011-11-19 22:21:11 This whole thing is ridiculous and self-entitling. Plenty of students struggle to pay fees but they get by. I wonder how much of their fees are being paid by their parents?
That said, if you don't like a business stop giving them your money. I don't like Apple products so I don't buy them. I don't like McDonald's "food" or business policies so I don't go there. I don't like my college's financial actions so I stopped being their customer.
You are NOT entitled to higher education. You are NOT entitled to set your own price in any business. You ARE in control of whose services you make use of.
If you don't like what's happening in the UC system, go to a private college or, -gasp-, don't go to college at all. There are tons of jobs around for non-skilled laborers if you know where to look and are willing to work with your hands. There's nothing wrong with manual labor. Millions of migrant workers come here in every season because of that, and there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone else from taking up some of those jobs aside from a stupid social stigma, most likely created and encouraged by the very businesses that have been sucking the economy dry.
If you don't want to pay student fees, stop being a student. :) —KBathory
- Ad hominem argument. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). Big Yawn. shraken
- Increasing the fraction of the population that is well-educated provides a significant benefit to society as a whole. If we want America to thrive—if we want HUMANITY to thrive—we must subsidize education. Learning should be available to all; no-one should be denied the opportunity to attend college because of numbers in a bank's computer. —BarnabasTruman
- Then why not take your money over to a JC for two years and pay a reasonable amount? OR go to a private school? Higher education is not a right and you shouldn't act like it is. 45% of people don't even enroll, almost 75% don't even get an Associate's degree. Point in fact less than 8% of people get Master's degrees. So for those of us who live in the real world and have to work for our keep and don't sink up to our necks in debt, the constant complaining about tuition going up is starting to get personally offensive. —MM
- Apparently, you are not familiar with the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education. I suggest you Google it. I also suggest you look at the tuition increases: from $6141 in 2006-2007 to $10,302 in 2010-2011. The new proposal is for increases of 8% to 16% over the next four years, possibly bringing the fee as high as $22,068 for the 2015-2016 school year —CovertProfessor
- This particular uproar isn't about the rightness or wrongness of the protest on the Quad. It's about the pepper-spraying of nonviolent protestors. Whether you agree with their protest is beside the point. They could have been protesting for more flavors of yogurt at the supermarket and this pepper-spraying would still have been outrageous, along with the Chancellor's failure to clearly condemn it. - KenjiYamada
- Well said, Kenji. —CovertProfessor
2011-11-19 23:37:09 I was at the Occupy Davis meeting at Central Park today. I heard Jerika Heinze who was one of the protesters who was pepper sprayed give more information. The details she gave will be coming out I believe. There was further brutalization of at least one who was blinded and trying to leave. Also she said that she was improperly dealt with later at the UCD Police Station. She said that the police were menacing and made her feel unsafe. She feels that she and others will be unsafe on the campus. —BruceHansen
2011-11-20 13:56:27 Congratulations, UCD. You have replaced Penn State as the current University with which no one wants to be associated. In both cases, the benefits that you provide to the community will be overshadowed by bad decisions at the top. Great job! —JerseyCity
2011-11-20 17:36:07 Thought about this a lot and I feel like Katehi ultimately was screwed either way. The truth behind why the protesters couldn't stay on campus has nothing to do with actual concerns for safety...only concern about liability. I can only assume, but it makes sense to me, that she'd need to get the students off the quad during the weekend because the school does not want to be held liable for anything that might happen to them. UCD isn't going to pay for the increased security that an event like this would need because 1) they aren't going to and 2) I'd imagine doing so would imply taking liability for it. OWS and related movements are getting a lot of press for things like rapes happening, any large group of people (i.e. mob) is inherently dangerous to individuals taking part in it. Obviously they are choosing to partake in this activity, and a simple warning of "we aren't going to be responsible for your actions" should suffice, but we have a lawsuit happy society. So Katehi couldn't take the risk of letting them stay on campus. She called in the police, whose job it is to enforce that she wants them gone, and maybe she didn't care if kids got maced, maybe she did. The problem is that this really was a no-win situation for her. I don't blame her for the actions the cops took. Now if you want to get super technical, there's a lot of other crap worth blaming her for (the obscene pay/benefits she gets for example) and you can argue that this is the end result of her behavior. Piss off enough people, get put in a no win situation. THAT is definitely fair. I just think that from a perspective specific just to the scenario at hand, too much blame is put on her when it was the police that made the initial move. I also think it's ridiculous for the protesters to think that they weren't going to face this eventually for one reason: you've been told you have to move. At this point one of two things are going to happen: you're going to leave on your own OR they are going to forcibly remove you. Combine police with authority to force anyone to do anything, assume something bad is gonna happen. It doesn't always and there are cops who will take the hard road (harder for them I mean) to remove you but there are plenty of other cops who'll use whatever force is easiest for them. I'm not saying this to condone their actions, I think it's horrible. I just realistically know that this is how it goes down from every situation where people are engaging in civil disobedience. After all isn't that kind of the point? Protest something by doing a non-violent act, refuse to cease until the other side does engage in force, get hurt but also get press. Batons, firehoses, tazers, mace...it's nothing new and the organizers usually know what this tactic results in. Injuries and press. Every cause needs a martyr to get media attention that lasts. (In other words my stance can be summed up as: all major associated parties to this event are assholes and the students are getting used by everyone involved.) —OliviaY
- Very well reasoned analysis, OliviaY. Thanks for posting it. More people should read it carefully. Calzephyr
- I think Katehi can be blamed for the actions she has taken and failed to take since the event: calling for a "let's make this long enough so that everyone forgets about it" 90-day task force, now a marginally improved 30-day task force; not immediately taking responsibility and apologizing; not immediately initiating a criminal investigation into what happened; not considering asking the protesters to leave for the weekend and resume on Monday (if that really was the issue). Calling a press conference also comes off as an attempt to control the message rather than to engage in genuine dialogue with the protesters. We'll see what happens tomorrow; perhaps she'll get it right then. —CovertProfessor
- I can agree to that. I just think the general community response holding her responsible for what happened is a bit much. I wish she'd just come out and say "We didn't want to get sued." somehow I think that would go over better. —oy
- Well, I think there was a lot of uncertainty in the beginning about what she had ordered — and some may still be uncertain, given the way that she has dribbled out information in various places rather than speaking directly to us. It now appears that she didn't order pepper spraying — that the pepper spraying was an "on the ground" decision. But in the beginning, I didn't know what she had ordered. And in some sense, the buck does need to stop with the Chancellor; she needs to assume responsibility for what happens under her command, because ultimately she is responsible. She might, for example, have explicitly told the campus police that they should avoid violent methods like pepper spray unless they were absolutely necessary. I am guessing that she didn't do that. —CovertProfessor
- No idea but even if she had, the police force (this one specifically and police in general) isn't exactly honest. They probably would have done whatever they wanted regardless of her making a request. They have flat out lied about officers being "in danger" on the ground here and that protest tazer incident from a year or so ago....
- Maybe so. They certainly tried to claim they were in danger in this case; luckily, the videos make it crystal clear that they were in no danger whatever. And their body language shows clearly that they weren't even (irrationally) afraid. —cp
2011-11-20 18:02:00 The 30 day task force investigation will not provide for any student participation as the students will go through thanksgiving break, and finals during this period with the report coming out during winter break. Not that I think much will come out of it in the first place. —ChrisDietrich
- Task forces like this are an administrator's way of pretending to do something about a problem without actually doing anything. —CovertProfessor
2011-11-20 18:48:49 An independent investigation would be good. The Chancellor's task force is questionable, the faculty has taken a stance against Katehi, so their investigation could have a question of bias. Nevertheless they have credibility, so an investigation initiated by them would be, creditable. I see that they have begun action on that. —BruceHansen
2011-11-20 18:58:31 I love the inaccurate reporting... "students flooded the building" "Students rushed in" "No police presence" I was there and these reports are not entirely accurate by any means. —Wes-P
2011-11-21 01:09:03 Having now watched the entirety of what happened from the time the police entered the Quad to the time the police left the Quad, I will say this:
The protesters made one mistake: standing up and walking towards the police. Not a good idea. It APPEARS to be aggressive, even if that was not the intention (and I presume it wasn't). Always leave a potential enemy an escape route if you don't want a fight. Forming a horseshoe shape and asking the police to leave might have been better. On the other hand, the police had just tackled and zip-cuffed a bunch of protesters (apparently at random), and I understand the anger of the crowd.
The police made lots of mistakes: everything they did. What exactly was their goal here? Make random arrests? Goad (unsuccessfully) the protesters into fighting back? Take a leisurely walk across the Quad and hurt people on the way out? Huge errors were made at every step of the way, and I'm having serious doubts about the judgment and competence of every uniformed person at the scene. —BarnabasTruman
2011-11-21 01:12:47 Here is my humble suggestion for a better alternative. (Yeah, yeah, hindsight... but today's hindsight is tomorrow's foresight.)
Attention police! We understand that you are somewhat confused and excited and maybe think that we are a threat even though we mean you no harm. We are willing to give you a gift of ten minutes of complete silence so that you can calm down, collect your thoughts, discuss amongst yourselves, and decide what to do next. And now, silence. —BarnabasTruman
- I support your approach. I also think that the next step would be to do without the shouting. Instead of having everyone repeating the same phrase to show "power", pass a mic or a symbolic token to let individuals speak. Even though there is a crowd of people, let them speak one on one, one at a time. It is easier for the police to see that the situation is not out-of-control when people aren't making noises all around. Fundamentally, we are non-violent not because it is "effective", but because we see one another as family members in the same house. Non-violence is not a tactic. We do it because we love people, that includes the police, and the chancellor. This has nothing to do with what they might have done to us. This has only to do with who we are. —EdgarWai
- Hear hear, Edgar. —KenjiYamada
2011-11-21 02:35:10 A student named Willee appeared to be the only protester to have an extended dialogue with Pike immediately before the pepper-spraying. Pike came over to talk to him in a fairly low voice at least a couple times over the duration of the protest. Only the last snippet is clear enough to be at least partially transcribed. It has been reconstructed by combining the coherent parts of several different YouTube videos.
Willee: You're going to shoot me? You're going to shoot me for sitting here? Hey officer, is that what you said?
Willee: Officer, is that ... [garbled audio]
Unidentified Male Protester: He just said yes.
Unidentified Female Protester: Shoot You. He's going to shoot you.
Willee: Alright. Just making sure. Just making sure.
Pike:[pats Willee on the back] I'm telling you right now.
Willee: You're shooting us for sitting here?
Pike: [garbled ]... That pepper spray gun... [garbled] [pats Willee on the back again and starts walking back to the rest of the police]
Willee: No, that's fine. That's fine. You're shooting us for sitting here.
2011-11-21 10:08:19 can anybody say Martial Law coming to a town near you? The UCPD i simply training for future havoc... Look at em, Pike is ex-marine Globally these Police are getting rowdy! How is it that police brutality and civil disobedience comes hand in hand? And i thought we were safe in Davisville.. I wonder if some of these police were also present during the March 4, 2010 use of teargas and pellet guns on students. My, my, who do these piggies and Katehi think they are? —alcatraz
2011-11-21 11:48:46 I'm ashamed that this happened at Davis. However, I'm really proud of the community response, in particular the outstanding efforts by those who contributed to DavisWiki to have such an exhaustive collection of media regarding this event. This wouldn't have been possible 10-15 years ago. —DannyMilks
2011-11-21 15:18:16 Here's SacBee.com's posting. It contains a (frustratingly) short video excerpt: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/21/4071197/uc-davis-rally-each-speaker-gets.html —OldDavis73
2011-11-21 15:44:21 Some quick reflections on today's rally, which I attended about 2 hours of: It was a huge crowd, and it was amazingly calm, peaceful, and well-behaved. I say this as someone who hates crowds and normally avoids them at all costs. It was mostly students, of course, but there were also a fair number of grey hairs in the audience. It was nice to hear many of the speakers talk about solidarity between students, faculty, staff, and community members — as it should be. We are all united in this common cause. Katehi seemed to speak from the heart, and I was glad to hear her give a direct and untempered apology; however, all the things that she left unsaid left a ringing silence, and the crowd was clearly unhappy. As I left, a proposal for a campus-wide strike on Nov 28 was being discussed — the day the Regents vote on the 81% "fee" increase, if I understood correctly. —CovertProfessor
- I think it is very interesting that we heard the same speech by Katehi and I feel completely differently about it. I did not hear a 'direct and untempered apology' at all. What I heard was a woman who is tearful about being publicly shamed, not tearful about the why. She claims to take full responsibility, yet she continues to rotate a number of excuses (her newest one is trying to incite fear about "outside agitators" a.k.a. Davis community members). Granted, she did not have time to insert excuses into her short speech today. However, her continued use of passive voice is very telling. She is "sorry for what happened." She has not, however, said "I'm sorry for what I did," "I am sorry for my role in this," "I am sorry for ordering police to remove tents," "I am sorry for continuing to use political doublespeak in every letter I send to the UC Davis community." It is all passive. To me, this belies her true feelings and her failure to admit her responsibility for the situation to herself. -Megan
- Yes, we who witnessed as alumni, friends, family, community members, taxpayers, and parents of future students are terribly frightening people, didn't you know? I would blame it on the grey hairs, but mine aren't, yet.... —KrisThaler
2011-11-21 17:06:19 Wow—those pictures say a lot. Words not needed. They're upsetting enough. I signed the petition to oust Kalehi and will encourage others to do so —PeterBoulay
2011-11-23 09:36:17 "Another Berkeley"? —BruceHansen
2011-11-24 07:27:18 Been relatively silent online about all of this but, since discovering the Macing when I returned home from work that evening, I have been actively participating and interacting with the protestors. I am proud to see that so many are active in a peaceful and democratic fashion and have been thoroughly impressed with the student and public response thus far. Speaking to many of my fellow vets, we stand in solidarity with the students. —Wes-P
2011-11-24 08:01:11 Where should I ask questions about the resignation petition? I want to know these: One of the key points supporting the resignation is the authorization to use excessive force. This means that she should resign IF she authorized it. Then, is this a common understanding among the supporters of the resignation that if it is a fact that the chancellor did not order it, the supporters are READY to drop this point? If so, why are people ready to sign the petition when the investigation is not over and we don't know the fact about whether she order it?
To those who signed it, did you sign it because: a) She ordered the use of excessive force, and here is the evidence that she did it. b) I already know someone who would have done a better job, not only on how to handle the event, but as a chancellor in general, and that person is ready to take over her duties, and that person is ——. c) In theory, if Person A does a bad job and Person B does a good job, the best outcome is to let Person B teach Person A how to do a good job, so that we end up with two people capable of doing a good job. However, in this situation, it is better to evict Person A and let Person B take over. And here is the reason ——. d) I have another reason for her resignation, but since we all want the same result, I signed it. My reason is ——. e) Everyone is signing the petition, if I don't sign it my friends won't talk to me. f) If people don't sign it now while people are angry, people's view may change or they may forget, then I would lose this opportunity to oust her for a legitimate reason. My reason is this —-. I have discussed it over and over at —-, but there was never enough attention to act. Now is the opportunity to act. Even though I do not know for certain what happened this time, I need to seize the opportunity to get the effect. g) Something bad happened so someone needs to step down, the higher the better. We shouldn't need to petition for this, people should automatically offer to resign when something like this happens. If there are other urgent businesses that the chancellor is taking care of, which makes it a bad idea to offer to resign right now, the chancellor should identify those unfinished business, work on hand them over to someone, and offer a schedule to resign once that businesses are completed or transferred. This is what we expect from responsible leaders. It is already a step late if we need to petition for the resignation. It should have been automatic. The protocol should be that they automatically resign, and we write the petition to save them. Not the other way around, which is what we are doing. But since that didn't happen, we do this. h) Because someone I knew signed it and I trust their judgement. i) Because of her actions, or lack of actions, since the event itself. She has been slow to take responsibility, slow to condemn the actions, dribbled out bits of information (some of it conflicting), and not shown any indication that she is capable of bringing about real change. She reacts to events and to negative publicity, rather than being proactive. j) ——.
To those who have not signed the petition, is it because: a) I don't know enough about what happened to endorse an action that may cause great disruption. I would sign it if I get the information I need. I am particularly cautious because you can sign a petition, but you can't easily un-sign it. If a petition was created based on false information, I could be helping some special interest on an unjust cause. Therefore I need to know before I sign it. b) I don't care about what happens as it does not affect me. c) I like the chancellor, because —-. d) The logic in the petition is unsound. For example, there is no logical connection between —- and —-. e) The petition has false information, such as —-. f) By now, the UC President has already expressed support for the chancellor, and the chancellor supports her own decision not to resign. The petition had gotten the attention, and the decision has been made. The petition phase is over. g) The chancellor is doing a reasonably good job, and there is no other person who could have done significantly better during this time. Here is the evidence that she did a good job: ——. And here is the evidence that there is no obvious replacement for her that would do a better job: ——. h) The petition shows a signed list of people who are acting out of either their emotion, hidden agenda, and quick to judge in the absence of important facts. The petition shows exactly the type of people we don't want to serve as a chancellor. i) —-.
Where should I ask questions like this to systematically explore the viewpoints people have, rule out the bad responses, and do it in a way so that people with similar questions wouldn't need to ask it again? —EdgarWai [Edit: 11/27] Sorry, I posted the above without knowing that a town hall meeting took place on 11/22. —EdgarWai
2011-11-25 11:37:40 Have the protesters apologized for encircling the police? If not I think they should do it first, because apologies are not bargaining chips. It doesn't matter if you perceive that what you need to apologize for is much smaller than what the other needs to apologize for. If you do something wrong, you apologize. That is your integrity. The truly peaceful person is not only defending their own rights. They are also always trying to see the others in their best light, because they know that if the other is actually evil, it would be extremely difficult for them to act. Believing that someone is evil is a last resort. The protesters should also condemn the personal attacks at Lt. Pike and people who are trying to humiliate. Those behaviors are not peaceful people should stand for. Bullying is bad, regardless whether you do through violence or through social pressure. I apologize for not knowing enough to say anything more productive. Right now I am going through peace-related articles and videos to tell which movements are legitimate and which ones are just special interest fighting another special interest under the name of peace. —EdgarWai
I appreciate to effort that you've put into this page. You should check out that the protesters weren't "encircling the police." —BruceHansen
Thank you, could you point me to the resource that said the protesters did not encircle the police? My understand was based on this, it said, "There was still one walkway open that the police were going to use to walk the arrestees out. I saw some friends of mine sit down there, and they were my friends, so I joined them. We linked arms, legs crossed." To me that meant there was a gap initially, but then someone sat there to close the only opening. —EdgarWai
I'm sorry this is not a complete response. The sittting protesters that were pepper-sprayed chose to sit down where they did because it had historical significance. They were in a line. Did they inadvertantly complete a circle? Were the police trapped? —BruceHansen
I wasn't a witness. I am only asking questions based on what I read. According to point #3 here, they completed a circle. According to this, the circle was closed intentionally: "A collective decision was made on the fly to just sit in a circle arms linked legs crossed, with police officers and "prisoners" in the middle because we didn't want them arresting only 3 of us. It wasn't fair that 50 of us were there, and only a few arrested who hadn't volunteered to be arrested. There was still one walkway open that the police were going to use to walk the arrestees out. I saw some friends of mine sit down there, and they were my friends, so I joined them. We linked arms, legs crossed." How do you want to define "trapped"? If you are driving on the road and the siren is sound, and you intentionally don't move away, are you blocking or trapping the police? If you spray water in front of the path that the police (or any reasonable person) would use so that if they walk into it, they will get wet, are you trapping the police? This has nothing to do whether the police could navigate around or over the obstacle, but whether the obstacle is placed. My comment wasn't about whether the protesters formed an effective barrier, but the need to fairly emphasize that the subsequent rallies are less "volatile" than Nov18. We should be careful about this and note the facts. No matter how peaceful the subsequent rallies, we cannot use that as a mean to hide the actual situation on Nov18. The police at this point can no longer point this out or say anything that would not make the matter worse. We have created a situation where the police can only swallow the blame. It is only noble that the protesters keep this reminder and keeps the facts straight, and protect the ones they accuse from false information. The legal system was designed to do this. If we believe that we are morally equal (or greater) than the police, then we should follow the same principle. —EdgarWai
I don't get this. The videos show Pike stepping out of the circle before he sprayed them, and no one tried to stop him. If the police officers could leave the circle at any time without any interference from the protesters, in what sense of the term "trapped" could they have been trapped? They were not trapped at all; the stepping out of the circle showed that the police could get out at any time, and that they knew they could get out any time. —CovertProfessor
I didn't bring up the term "trapped", that was BruceHansen's term, I was asking how he would define it. After that I will probably ask how that would relate to the situation, since according to some comments, the police was not supposed to use pepperspray unless there is physical violence going on. According to this, even if the protestors lock up the police in a room, the police can't use pepperspray. I am not trying to say that laws are stupid, but I would believe that laws are inherently vague because the law can't easily account for all possible situations. I used the word "encircle" because that word was less subjective.
On Nov18, the protestors encircled the police who were trying to leave after making the arrest. The pepperspray that followed was bad. I could only say that it was bad and unlawful according to some comments, but I am not sure, because it would seem inconceivable that the police did not know it, so I would still need to read it for myself. I was asking if the protestors had apologized for surrounding the police and impeding the arrest process. You could argue that they didn't stop Pike when he stepped over, but note that the intention was not to stop the officers, but to stop the transfer of the arrested protestors (see this at 9min). The demand of the protestors was that IF the police let the arrested go, the protestors would continue peacefully. (So, what happens if the police don't let the arrested go?) Therefore, logically, seeing that the students did nothing when Pike stepped over did not disprove the possibility that the protestors could do something if the police were trying to bring the arrested outside the circle. (I am just pointing out the logical fallacy, I believe that the protestors wouldn't because they were nonviolent-trained because I recognize some of them.) We don't have the luxury to know exactly what would happen if the police brought the arrested one by one across the circle.
The police arrested some, and then they were encircled. It was a leaderless situation and the actions of the protestors were quite unpredictable. From the long videos, it seemed that they kept shouting things that exaggerated or misrepresented what the police was doing. For example, in here, they were shouting "stop beating the students", but the police was not beating anyone. I want to know that the protestors are actively correcting any misunderstanding about the event, even when the details are might be inconvenient for gathering a bigger crowd. Sorry my post is long. I want to know if there is a forum for this type of comments. I don't think it is appropriate for this type of discussion to be a comment. What medium should I use? I am asking this because this isn't the main point I want to discuss. The main point I want to ask about is whether the tuition increase is legitimate, whether it was done in good faith by the administration. I want to know the proof of whether it was justifiable or not. Compared to that, the Nov18 event should be a secondary issue. I want to catch up to tuition data to see if there is any wrong doing. I would appreciate if someone knows where that data is to help me catch up on the issue. —EdgarWai
Now working on it by collecting and listing references on a timeline, then I want to check if the wiki is missing any information worthwhile to highlight. —EdgarWai
Not sure what you mean by highlighting missing information, but I recommend that you simply add any missing information. It would be especially good have a table with tuition amounts for the last 10 years. If that is what your timeline is (or if it's anything like that), that would certainly be worth having on the wiki, even if some of the information is scattered elsewhere. —CovertProfessor
Sorry about the wording, I meant simply adding any missing information. About the table or tuition over the years, there is already a chart at UC Davis Budget Cuts. But that chart itself does not shed any light on whether there is any wrong-doing. If it is true that the increase is used to close the gap caused by decreased funding from the state, then the main question that determines whether there is wrong-doing is not whether the tuition is increasing, but whether it is a justifiable decision that the gap should be paid by the students, or whether the state budget was allocated in good faith. —EdgarWai
Ok, I just wanted to make sure. Sometimes people just point out missing/incorrect information rather than simply adding/fixing it; I just wanted to make sure you felt free to make changes. I'd also add that, regardless of the reasons for the tuition increases (and I think there are many), we've come a long way from the promises and the intent of the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education. Changing from a public institution to a private one is a concern. Making higher education affordable only to a select few is a concern. Burdening the next generation with huge loans in an economy with few jobs is a concern. We need to do better. —CovertProfessor
I agree that keeping higher education accessible is a serious concern. I want to know whether a protest or a strike is justified, because there is no immediate connection between a concern and a strike. Usually a protest takes place because fruitful communication is absent. A protest is a mean to initiate such lost channel. At this point, is it justified that the communication channel is lost? Secondly, a protest implies that someone has the margin to do something to fix the issue. Do we know that someone has that margin? It is our goal to make education accessible (According to the Master Plan, 1/8 of top high school students, tuition-free for in-state students). But if it is a fact that we don't have the resource to do it (while balancing it on other legitimate priorities), then we have to understand that the goal cannot be met, and a protest at such a time would be counter productive. I can't take a stand because I am too slow in catching up to the situation, but when I do catch up I want to take a stand. (I meant I have no ground to oppose nor to support the protest. I am paralyzed by ignorance.) (currently reading the Master Plan to learn the logic behind it.)—EdgarWai
Go Edgar! - bh
2011-11-28 05:09:59 The police response is indicative of why a protest is necessary. The occupy encampment could have been dealt with without violence. If Larry Vanderhoef were still in charge he would have walked down and talked to the people himself but Katehi instead stayed in her ivory tower and sent the police out to do the impossible job of telling protesters (who, given that Davis is a collegetown, can all be argued to belong in the UCD community) to move off from the most popular gathering place on this public campus during a school day but she also told them to not be forceful. How on earth could she think the protesters, believing they have a constitutional right to peacefully assemble, would simply pack up and go -no questions asked. Facebook posts, letters to the editor, and signing on-line petitions will never elicit as much call for change as human bodies taking a public stand together. What Katehi and the-powers-that-be always forget is that every time they use excessive force is just another chance for the media to elevate a martyr for the protesters' cause. That is what the pepper-spray incident has served to do. I am very much against the police response to this incident but I feel sorry for John Pike. Given the attention to this event, the people that he did the greatest favor for and the same that hate him the most. And now, because Katehi lacked either foresight or forbearance, the occupy movement will stay galvanized on campus into 2012. —RobRoy
2011-11-28 08:03:35 It's amazing to me that about twenty-fonur hours after the pepper-spraying Chancellor Katehi wasn't that aware of it. She viewed videos of it shown to her by mediators for eight minutes at the location of the press conference. —BruceHansen
2011-11-28 11:25:44 Anyone have a sense of how widespread the strike is among students, faculty, and/or staff? The turnout at the ARC 7:30am today didn't look that impressive. Is it picking up steam? —TomGarberson
- See this.
2011-11-29 02:26:48 Why Dutton? —BarnabasTruman
- It's where they take your money. Also done in solidarity with the Banana Slugs at UC Santa Cruz, who shut down a similar building on their campus starting at 5:30am Nov 28. -Megan
- It's also where the Student Academic Success Center offers free tutoring and support workshops for students struggling in math, physics, chemistry, and writing, unless that all gets canceled due to the occupation. Does anybody with financial decision-making power even work in Dutton? Wouldn't Mrak be a better choice? I'm wondering if Dutton's only being targeted because it's an easy target. —BarnabasTruman
- Tutoring services are not being disrupted. I do not believe those with decision-making power are in there, but the cashier who takes students' money is. Mrak has been on complete lockdown since they last kicked activists out. You are not even let through the locked doors unless you have a prior existing appointment.
- The protestors need to stop disrupting Dutton. I've heard from a student that works there that the protestors are making a huge mess and dropping their trash in the financial aid document dropbox, ruining documents for honest students. They should move to camp outside Mrak and stop disrupting a building that disburses aid to students and offers tutoring services. —EliYani
2011-12-02 16:35:42 Occupy Dutton is getting ridiculous. Tents obstructing the hallways, gatherings of people obstructing the stairways, graffiti in the bathrooms. I've been strongly in favor of Occupy UCD so far but the behavior of Occupy Dutton is making me rethink my position. Go occupy the Mondavi Center instead; that's where tuition money is being wasted on the 1%! —BarnabasTruman
- What is this supposed to mean: "that's where tuition money is being wasted on the 1%!" ? —EdgarWai
- Perhaps that wasn't the right wording. How much of a typical Mondavi Center audience consists of students? —BarnabasTruman
- No clue. How much of Mondavi Center's operation construction / operation fund could have been used to support instruction? How much of Mondavi Center's profit could be used to support instruction (or perhaps also includes art programs)? I have no clue about the facts, but perhaps the Mondavi Center was built with funding that could only be used for building such a building, and perhaps the building is actually supporting undergrad education. If that is the case, then the Mondavi Center is actually on the students' side. (i.e. Robert Mondavi— donated money to let UC Davis perpetually fund its undergrad education.) But who knows? —EdgarWai
2011-12-05 21:52:33 I saw the video. I can't say the protesters were innocent, I just can't. I hope the group mob has learned to behave better or no one will feel inclined to listen to them after this spin game has been revealed ... from davis to greece indeed. :( The police inquiry continues, and I hope the group has had a serious sit-down and scream-at for themselves too. —JeffWood
- So, anyone who says "Fuck the police" deserves to be pepper sprayed?? —CovertProfessor
- Anyone who says "F#!# the police" does not deserve acclaim as victims. Parents should spank their kids who say this to the police and I fear some parents now wish they had done so earlier. No excuse for that behavior. Anyone training and undertaking the duties and responsibilities of law enforcement deserves ridicule and scoffing disrespect? I think not. —JeffWood
- Look, I am not defending them for saying "Fuck the police." They shouldn't have said that. That does not mean that they deserved to be pepper sprayed, or that they are any less victims. The punishment far outweighs the "crime." —CovertProfessor
- I agree, they should not have said that. They do cry they are victims though, as we have all heard since the incident until the recent videos of their behavior spread out. Nor am I thinking they were pepper-sprayed for that alone, with the chanting exacerbating the perception that their mindset was dangerous to the police is my thought. Lots of mistakes. The police have their internal inquiries to straighten them out. I am hoping the students take the time to shake some sense into themselves, apoligize where needed, and learn from the experience about how they can present themselves. Otherwise, I just see a mindless rioting mob ready to mug me next time where they would rather I see a peaceful demonstration. Fair enough.— JeffWood
- I grew up just down the street from Lawrence Livermore National Lab. It's a facility that does a lot of nuclear weapons research, among other DOD and DOE projects. They have weapons grade materials on-site. Every year, they have many protests. They have people yelling at police, blocking roads, sometimes even chaining doors or gates. You know what the officers there do? They arrest them. You know what they do if the protesters link arms? They pull them apart. It's a lifting game, nothing more. Police have been handling these situations for centuries, and they regularly do it without resorting to force. The notion that police somehow get special privileges, such that they can respond to insults with violence, is ridiculous. It's contrary to both logic and law. While you may favor a scenario in which police have free reign to do violence to anyone who disrespects them, I am immensely thankful that both our laws and our culture wholeheartedly reject that view. Yes, some of those protesters were rude, and sure, maybe their parents should have done a better job. That doesn't change the fact that their civil rights were violated when Pike and Lee used excessive force under the color of law. —TomGarberson
- Then let the courts throw the book at them, that is what they are there for, to protect us from mob rule and homegrown propoganda spin tactics. :) I just do not believe that the protesters are an innocent party. An aggrieved party, certainly, and I am curious how the inquiry turns out — JeffWood
- Last time I checked there was nothing you could throw the book at us for. I'm pretty sure "fuck the police" (a chant that lasted literally 20 seconds, by the way, and ended because most protesters there shushed them) falls under the first amendment. What else can they do? Charge us with trespassing on our own Quad, on a campus we PAY for? Or reprimand us for "overnight camping," which is actually not a law but a campus policy that should be dealt with by student judicial affairs, not cops in riot gear? Also— these are not "recent videos." If you actually check the history of the page, videos of the incident from start to finish have been up from the beginning. Maybe you should check your accusations of a 'propaganda spin machine' since videos by the activists have been made available, UNEDITED and without twisted commentary, since the day of. But then, I wouldn't expect you to display any common sense since you are characterizing people practicing civil disobedience and peaceful protest as a "mindless rioting mob." -MeggoWaffle
- Now don't you feel better? Get out all that rage against one person speaking his own opinion that differs from yours. Of course no common sense, I should be, maybe,...pepper sprayed? I have seen the videos, both commentary and not, and it is obvious the protesters were not innocent, were heard and the tone was threatening. To me at least. I was afraid for the police that were the target of the mob's (which at least one other of your group admit to being an angry one) attention. Your screaming I am wrong does nothing to change my reasoned opinion. —JeffWood
I don't think you've explained the full, reasoned opinion that you've formed. First let me make sure I understand: you're saying the police used pepper spray to defend themselves, right? Assuming that's correct, how do the facts in this incident fit, in your mind, into what constitutes self-defense? While this obviously isn't a criminal case, the law of self-defense basically sets out the common-sense points related to the issue. Violence is used in self-defense where a person actually and reasonably believes that he or another person is in imminent danger of harm. Moreover, there has to be the actual and reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary to defend against the harm. The amount of force justifiable is essentially proportional to the imminent harm.
In this context, we're looking at four key points: 1) did the officer actually believe there was danger? 2) Was that belief reasonable? 3) Was the danger imminent? 4) Was the use of pepper spray necessary to prevent that imminent harm? Officers in the field making split-second decisions are given some degree of deference, but that only goes so far. I think if you look at the facts in an honest, unbiased way, you'll agree that it's doubtful the officers were acting in self-defense. First, Pike's calm, casual demeanor, his visor being raised, and the chatting with a protester before getting out the pepper spray suggest that he did not actually believe he or anyone else there was in imminent danger of harm. I'll leave #2 up in the air, since you seem to think there was reasonably some danger. For the third point, what evidence is there that any danger you think existed was imminent? Was someone about to take a swing? Was the crowd rushing the officers? Had anyone been grabbed, knocked down, or otherwise harmed? In short: where's the imminent danger? Finally, what rational relationship does pepper spraying the seated protesters bear to preventing any danger that may have existed? Were they involved in chanting the "threats"? How was spraying them necessary to prevent imminent harm?
Frankly, your point just doesn't seem reasonable. I've heard and I understand the argument that spraying protesters was necessary to disperse them. I don't agree, both because it's illegal (see the 9th Circuit case cited on this page), and because I've seen similar protests dismantled in nonviolent ways in the past. But I understand that point. As far as I can tell, though, you're making a different argument: you're saying the officers were protecting themselves. Even assuming, arguendo, that the crowd's earlier chant was threatening, the circumstances plainly displayed in all of the videos clearly shows that there was no imminent threat. Furthermore, even if there was some threat, imminent or otherwise, it was from the standing crowd, not the ones who were seated, quiet, and not even facing the officers. Finally, the circumstances strongly imply that the two officers who used pepper spray did not actually believe they were in any danger. Thus I don't understand how you can say the officers were defending themselves by spraying the seated protesters.
Instead, I'm going to hazard a guess that the threat issue is a pretense and that your second comment in this exchange is the real root of your opinion: "Anyone who says "F#!# the police" does not deserve acclaim as victims. Parents should spank their kids who say this to the police and I fear some parents now wish they had done so earlier. No excuse for that behavior. Anyone training and undertaking the duties and responsibilities of law enforcement deserves ridicule and scoffing disrespect? I think not." While this rationale is still not reasonable, it does make some sort of logical sense if you begin with your apparent premise, i.e., anyone who disrespects the police deserves violence. —TomGarberson
- From the City of Houston v. Hill court ruling, 1987 "The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state." So that means the courts say, in America (and even in Texas), you can yell "Fuck the police" without having to worry about getting fucked by the police. There is no rudeness exception to the first amendment. Should you yell "Fuck the police"? Well, it really doesn't help win over moderate people to your side or make you appear very nice so it is not a wise tactic. It is also not a wise tactic for the police to pepperspray unarmed protesters in front of dozens of cameras and hundreds of people. All that will happen is the crowd will get excited and stick around much longer when you were trying to get them to leave in the first place. A revolution's greatest call to action is the creation of a martyr. UCDavis police usually do a great job. The police are hear to keep us safe and the campus is a rather safe place. UCDavis police are well paid and will receive a decent pension. I'm not going to say it is an easy job but if I had to choose between a factory worker in China and a UCD police officer I think I'd take the police job, even if requires hearing people say a "Fuck you" to me occasionally. You'd think they would recognize that they don't want to walk a beat in Detroit, Michigan or Camden, New Jersey and the UCDPD would show more patience. Is virtue to much to expect from our officers of the law? —RobRoy
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this, but the biggest part imho is the precedent set by the Humboldt case 10 years ago regarding pepper spray on trespassing unarmed protestors Daubert
- I read the Humboldt case (because someone posted a link), as far as my understanding goes, I think that the use of pepper spray was excessive. I am not saying it because there is a "precedent", but that according to the information in the ruling, the police could have just moved the protesters, just as how they would have done it until 1997 - before they had pepper spray. Now I want to know why pepper spray was used on Nov18. I want to know why Lt. Pike waved away the Davis police who were about to move the ones blocking the path. On the other hand, I tend to agree that the protesters were not completely innocent, but I should probably attribute that to myself being a wuss. In my opinion, civil disobedience is not innocent. Anger is not innocent. Unforgiveness is not innocent. I wonder how many people thought that the police just got off their car and decided to pepper spray students sitting on a sidewalk. I wonder how many people bothered to explain that the entire event was perhaps 45 minutes long, that the police came to remove the tent, that the chancellor had let them camp on the previous night, but had demanded them to disband for the weekend, that the protesters were discussing whether to return on Monday, but rejected the idea when the police showed up, that the protesters were shouting at the police to drown out the police's announcement, that the protesters encircled the police when the police was trying to leave.... None of these were comparable to the pepper spray, but the protesters were not as innocent as how people might imagine without knowing these details. They were executing a tactic. —EdgarWai
- Are you saying that you don't ever think there are good reasons to protest, to be angry about what you are protesting against, or to engage in civil disobedience? If you're saying that people who engage in civil disobedience should expect consequences, I think most do expect consequences, i.e., that they might be arrested, not that they might be pepper sprayed when they are being peaceful. (I realize that you've said that the pepper spray was excessive, but I wanted to respond to the other parts of what you'd said). —CovertProfessor
- It is an educational facility, so I can assume the protesters were at least somewhat aware the original civil disobedience in our nation included a declaration of their 'lives, fortunes and sacred honor'. Politics isn't pretty, and it isn't always with just words, nor do you always get what you want out of it (including just a respectful arrest, apparently). I'm sure they initially meant to be peaceful, though somehow that included actively forming a pattern and blockade. Sadly, I think they worked too hard at it and formed a dense-enough crowd situation that would have been troublesome and potentially dangerous to physically break up hand-to-hand. —JeffWood
- Re: on the relation between "innocence" and "anger". I meant when a person has an "innocent mindset" is hurt by an oppressor, the innocent person's primary emotion is not anger, but sadness. It is the mindset you get when you discover that your spouse cheated on you, but instead of feeling angry at what they did, you feel sad that it didn't work out. I think there are good reasons to protest. One of them is if the protesters are being censored, and if they don't make the misdeeds (of the oppressors) known, the oppressor may use the same tactic against the good people one by one to eliminate them. It is too much thinking for a lunch break, but I think the mentality a protester has is fundamentally different from that of an "innocent" person. To be a protester, you have to have a mentality that someone is definitely doing some wrong intentionally. That mindset is not there in an "innocent" person. When you pick up the picket signs and decides to protest, you have declared an enemy (for me there is a difference between a 'protest' and a 'demonstration'. In a 'demonstration', there is no implied declaration of an enemy). When you protest you forgo your innocence. It might be for a good cause, for example, in this understanding, all police officers (or soldiers) who are trained to shoot and kill when necessary have all forgone their innocence to do what some might be necessary for society to survive. Forgoing innocence is not necessarily bad, but I think it is still kind of sad. I think it would be better if we are in a world where there is no situation when we need to forgo it, but that is really idealistic isn't it? Sorry for being vague, but I am out of time. —EdgarWai
2011-12-06 18:53:01 After watching the video I think the protestors handled themselves pretty poorly. Seemed like an angry mob taunting and threatening the police. Certainly would not call it a non-violent protest. Fortunately for the protestors, the police handled themselves exponentially worse. I tried hard to come up with a reason for pepper spraying the people sitting down but I just can't come up with anything. It was like the police had no plan whatsoever. It was courageous to sit there and take pepper spray to the face for what you believe in, but I think everyone else, police included, acted pretty cowardly. —MikeyCrews
- On the topic of how people handled themselves, I think it's worth mentioning that the pepper spray itself might have incited more violence, but it didn't. That is, not one person there attacked the police after the pepper spraying occurred. To my mind, that showed great restraint. —CovertProfessor
I disagree. After the pepper spraying the protestors offer to "let the police go in peace" if they meet certain conditions. That's not non-violent. It's provocative and threatening. Any violence, even verbal, delegitimizes non-violent movements as a whole. And if we're too bias to see that, and learn from that, then ultimately it is our loss. —MikeyCrews
They offered to let them go in peace cause the officers were showing signs of force escalation ie) shouldering pepperball launchers, the "you can go in peace" human mic speech was done to de escalate but whatever Daubert
2011-12-06 19:07:23 Protest first, ask questions later! —NickSchmalenberger
2011-12-08 00:17:14 I was able to gain some info about the identity and occupation of the man in the gray suit tonight. Will update tomorrow when I am not on my phone —ChrisDietrich
2011-12-09 00:28:58 Regarding the annotated fact sheet: Suppose the chancellor's office is innocent and telling the true, what should be different in the official fact sheet? I think this is important to understand because knowing that all witches have green faces does not let you conclude that someone who has a green face is a witch. You would need to know that non-witches don't have green faces. In the following I am trying to show potential "innocent" explanations about the fact sheet. The potential explanation could be ruled out one by one if you know the relevant facts. When all of the potential explanations are ruled out, then I could conclude that everyone with a green face is a witch. I do it in this order because my default assumption is that people are innocent. I can only conclude that someone is guilty if it becomes apparent that they cannot be innocent. —EdgarWai
Replies by CovertProfessor are in italics below. Note that if it's true that there are multiple interpretations of the fact sheet, that is in itself a problem; a fact sheet should be entirely straightforward, containing no vague or ambiguous terms.
Replies by EdgarWai are preceded by (EW2). I think that the primary function of a fact sheet is to tell the truth. It should have as much details as long as they are factual.
1) At "protest": The annotators point out that the fact sheet omitted the purpose of the protest. One possible "evil" reason of the omission, is to hide the reason in order to dismiss the protests as an irrational occurrence. Potential "innocent" reason: a) The Admin did not know the true reason of the protest. b) The Admin can't speak for the protesters, because they don't know the protesters' intention as facts.
The reasons for the protest were well announced. There was a protest on Monday the 15th, and the tents were clearly a continuation of the protest. So, the alternatives are really: Admin knew (most likely) or Admin is incompetent because Admin doesn't know the background for a well-announced protest that has been going on for days (less likely, but still not very complimentary).
(EW2) Intention and purpose cannot be presented as facts. The Admin did not know if the students intended to wiretap, to steal information, or to tamper with the building. The Admin could mention tuition hike somewhere. For example, "They protested UC Present Yudof's proposal to conditionally increase tuition up to 81% over four years if the state legislation does not provide adequate funding for UC's."
(EW2) Comment: Let me take a step back and consider how I felt based on the fact sheet. Since the fact sheet mentioned no attempts by the protesters to initiate a lawful dialog, I would conclude that the protesters did not try to talk. It sounded like the protesters were doing their own thing and repeatedly ignoring the Admin. To me this was the biggest piece of information missing on the fact sheet. Were the students asking for a discussion, or were they just trying to occupy?
2) At "engage": The annotators point out that the word is euphemism for 'confront', and the chancellor did not communicate with the students enough before the tent. a) The Admin used the word 'engage' because it is objective and neutral. b) The Admin believed that they had done enough communication, considering that "resolving conflict with protesters" is not part of their scheduled daily task. To do so they would either be working overtime or postponing other scheduled tasks or meetings.
It is not objective and neutral. It is subject multiple interpretations, as the annotators note. As for having done enough communication, the tents were only up for one night. How much communication could have gone on? They were told that they could stay that one night, and then they did. Then (someone correct me if this is wrong) they received notification from Admin — not personal conversation — that they were to vacate. Admin now seems to admit that discussion would have been a better option.
(EW2) I agree that the word "engage" allows many interpretation. But I don't think that is a problem. There is a limitation on what the Admin could present as fact. The word "Engage" is not precise, but at least correct. It is a correct word because it is flavorless (i.e. objective and neutral). On Nov17 night, the protesters were allowed to stay on the quad. How did the protester know that Katehi let them stay? Was there still some sort of good will or none at all at that point? What was the actual agreement? Who was talking to whom?
3) At "generally peaceful": The annotators are surprised that Nov9 was omitted. a) The Admin was trying to say that sending the police to remove tents seemed to work fine on Nov14. (Could someone tell me if the police was also sent to remove tents on Nov9 at UC Berkeley? Were there camps already?)
Yes, there were tents in Berkeley, and the protesters were beaten with batons. Katehi knew about that; she has said that she wanted a peaceful removal so that another Berkeley would not happen. Yet here it gets no mention
(EW2) students beaten on both Nov9 and Nov14? Did the police succeed in removing tents both times, or only on Nov14? What Katehi said for Nov18 would be part of the investigation so it should be on the fact sheet. The main question of this point was why Nov9 was not mentioned. Where UCB b) UC Berkeley and UCBPD are being sued so the Admin does not comment on Nov9 for the same reason that it does not comment for the pepper spray.
4) At "elected to": Annotators say this sounds indirect. a) The Admin told the truth, that a group of Admin members met and voted on the course of action. Comment: I think some relevant follow up questions should be who the admin members were, what the voting process was, and what the votes were. If it turns out that "the UC Davis Administration" meant "Katehi herself" then that would be a nail on a coffin wouldn't it?
"Elected to" does not imply a vote in this context. It means "chose to." (EW2) I understand. The Annotators said the Chancellor was hiding behind a group. But it could be the truth that it was a collective decision.
5) At "enforce": Annotators say that the admin said they had no other options. a) The Admin did have more ideas, but the "voting" result was to send the police. b) The Admin could not legally ask anyone other than the police to do it because that is the role of the police. c) The Admin did not want to risk getting sued by its own employee if they got hurt while being asked to do something outside their job description. d) The Admin thought that the police would do a good job given the precedence that they were able to remove the tents peacefully elsewhere on Nov14. e) The Admin was indeed unaware of more effective methods.
Other universities have used other methods. If Admin is unaware of those, then Admin is incompetent. As I noted before, Katehi is now saying that a non-police group should probably be the one to talk to protesters in such circumstances.
(EW2) The sequence of events was this: Nov9: bad confrontation at UCB. Nov14: peaceful removal at UCB. Nov16: peaceful removal at UCD Mrak hall. Now it is Nov18 does it make sense for the Admin to suddenly not call the police, given that the events have been relatively ok since Nov14? In hindsight, we say that we would choose a different method. But according to the timeline, why wouldn't it look okay to send the police?
6) At "use of pepper spray": Annotators say that this is indirect. a) The Admin was trying to express what issues are under investigation. The issues are: "the arrest of the protesters" and "the use of pepper spray". b) The Admin did not think that passive voice is a problem. c) The Admin thought that the active voice: "the officers' arrest of the protesters" and "the officers' use of pepper spray" would sound awkward.
Passive voice always has the effect of deflecting responsibility, whether intended or not.
(EW2) In the original statement, although passive voice was used, the actor was not omitted. It was not "the use of pepper spray", but "the use of pepper spray by officers." The actors were the officers, although even in active voice—"The officers used pepper spray"—would not answer who was ultimately responsible. I don't think active or passive voice is an issue, the underlying issues is the lack of that ultimate actor. The ultimate actor is missing because it is under investigation.
7) At the "}": Annotators point out that the detail about the seated protesters are omitted. a) The Admin omitted the details because they cannot legally talk about it while it is under review.
The entire world has seen the seated protesters.
(EW2) It does not matter what the world had seen. The point is that the Admin lost its freedom to talk about it while the case is under investigation. If we ignore the investigation for the moment, I think that mentioning only seated protesters is unfair to the police. I think you would also have to mention that the protesters surrounded the police. One thing I do not understand is why the police wait to be surrounded. From the video it seemed like there were a few good minutes before the path was blocked, that the police could just leave. Was the police doing something?
8) At the upward "}": Annotators point out the admin find it appropriate to discuss actions of the students (in preceding paragraphs), but not the aftermath. a) The Admin could talk about what happened up to the incident but not about the incident itself because it is under review. b) The Admin did not think that the events after the incident was relevant because they are irrelevant to the review.
As far as I know, the whole thing is under review. It would have to be.
(EW2) Sorry I am confused. Do you mean that the Admin should not have talked about the events before Nov18?
9) At "What investigations": Annotators say the fact sheet did not mention everything the admin had done, and what the admin had done only as a response to student outcry. a) The Admin was going to have investigations before the students asked for it, however, the discussion is not as quick as the students imagined, and the Admin preferred to make announcement after their internal discussion is over. b) The Admin initially was not aware of any misconduct until student outcry. c) The Admin initially blamed the the protesters because that was the honest view of the Admin at that point. d) The Admin actually still believe that the protesters are in the wrong, however, they do not say it because they don't want to hurt the protesters' feelings, and cause further problems.
There is reason to believe (see the report from the Academic Senate) that Katehi was initially just repeating what she was told, rather than taking some time to find out what really happened, again, suggesting incompetence.
(EW2) I also believe that she was only repeating what she was told at first. But I can't tell if that indicates incompetence, because I don't know what priorities she had at that moment. If a firefighter faces three fires but only have resources to extinguish two, knowing that one is left burning is not enough to say that the firefighter is incompetent. To show that she was incompetent, I would need to know her situation. If there is a common standard of competence (for a chancellor) so that for any situation that may happen in the future, then we can monitor how she scores as a chancellor. Such a standard cannot just include the well-being of students, but also every other stakeholders such as faculty, staff, sponsors, and retired faculty. On the faculty town hall meeting, several speakers said Katehi is the best chancellor they have seen, and according to some source she is the lowest paid chancellor in the UC. If that is correct, when we assert that she is incompetent, we are saying that the UC has never had a competent chancellor in the recent 40 to 50 years of history and we are now expecting not only a better one but one who is willing to serve at a even lower salary. If we know such a candidate, perhaps we should call for a replacement regardless what happened on or around Nov18.
9b) Why aren't competent leaders volunteering to replace her? a) Because there is a shortage of competent leaders. The competent leaders can't leave their existing position. b) Because there is no competent leader that sees Katehi as incompetent. c) Because there is no competent leader who would see this as an opportunity to lead the UC. d) Because no competent leader wants to lead the UC. e) Because in the current economic situation, a competent leader that could save the UC, uphold the Master Plan while not having a for-profit infrastructure to make itself sustainable (not to mention to meeting increase costs), while being constantly attacked by the very people they try to support, is a fantasy—There is no single person in human history who could do that.
10) At "Fact-finding": Annotators point out the omitted fact that Bratton was reassigned after an outcry. a) The Admin thought that Bratton was a good choice, but was willing to reassign him to avoid outcry. Comment: I think I would have had a bubble on the words "in turn", because to me that implied Yudof picked Reynoso as first choice. This would contradict the Annotators' comment that Reynoso was chosen only after an outcry.
11) At "}": Annotators question why the chain of command stops at the vice chancellor. a) The Admin said so because that was the truth. The chain of command stops there. b) The Chancellor did instruct the police not to use force, but she was not in the chain of command. c) .. as a result, the police did not care what she said. The Admin omitted this part because that is inappropriate for the fact sheet.
It speaks to Katehi's double-speak of "I take responsibility" but "someone else is really responsible."
(EW2) Suppose it is true that the chain of command stops at the vice chancellor, then the vice chancellor should be the one taking responsibility, but the chancellor said she will take it also. We got an extra person (Katehi) taking responsibility. That is a bonus.
12) At "Health and safety": Annotators say that it was standard excuse. a) The Admin believes that there is health and safety liability issues letting students camp on the quad. It is not an excuse. b) The Admin is following the protocol and regulation because they believe that the regulation was written in good-faith, and assuming that every party is acting in good-faith, there is no reason for the protesters to intentionally violate the regulations. c) The Admin disapproves the behavior of the protesters and believes that they should take a firm stance so that the protesters do not continue to put the university at risk for liability issues that the protesters disregard. d) The Admin finds it impractical to ask the entire community to sign a waiver to release the university of any liability issues resulting from permitting the occupation.
Where are the health and safety issues now? The tents stayed up for several weeks without problem.
(EW2) The issues are still there, but the Admin is not dealing with it.
13) At "}": Annotators point out that adhering to policies does not free the leaders from considering appropriate responds a) The Admin was shocked by the police response. But the word "shocked" was inappropriate for the fact sheet. b) The Admin believe that asking the police to remove the tents was an appropriate response. —EdgarWai
Admin is hiding behind "policy" as though adhering to "policy" were what was the most important things.
(EW2) By this I think you meant the Admin should be aware that always have the choice to decide whether to enforce a policy. According to the timeline, the Admin used that choice at least two times: First when allowing the students to stay in Mrak for one night, Second when allowing the students to stay on the Quad for one night. But the concern of the overall fairness remains. If you are saying that the Admin should just forget about the policy and deal with the important underlying issues. Do you agree that the Admin is doing so (by not enforcing the policy, but hold town halls instead)? In my understanding you are talking about the week of Nov14 and questioning why the Admin did not have town hall meeting back then. In that regard I guess I am just trying to see if the Admin could be innocent, not to show if the Admin was competent. I have no reason to reject your conclusion that the Admin is incompetent. Not to be heartless, if we find a better chancellor to replace her, there is no moral reason why she wouldn't accept to step down. That is what a moral person would do if they are truly acting in the interest of others—you look for something better than you, then you step down. So it is really ok for us to say that she is incompetent. Now, who is that person? There should be no bad feeling that we are finding someone to replace her. In this high moral, we are definitely doing her a favor for finding her a replacement. People should appreciate others taking the time to replace themselves.
Logical Issues about the Petition to Resign
The following is a list of questions that kept me from signing a petition for Chancellor Katehi's resignation. I originally posted these because I could not decide whether the petition was correct. I asked about these directly hoping that someone who had already signed the petition could fill in the logic. Please note that this set of questions only pertains to someone questioning the merit of the petition because inaction is the default. The letters asked me to sign a petition, and I was deciding why I should do so. This was why all of the questions were against the petition. My intention was not to oppose the petition, but to express the questions I have, so that you have a chance to answer them and convince me to sign the petition. If I had not reached out and tell you my doubts directly, you would have no chance of convincing me, or others who would have supported the petition. To those who have signed the petition, the following should be easy questions. If you read it, and you cannot answer it but realize that they are important questions, you should feel that you are not ready to sign the petition. That was how I felt. But that knowledge gap should be overcome. And that was why I was asking the questions. I always find it very hard to be a protester because each protester needs to know a lot to justify their action. I would believe that these questions were already answered, since this was a petition endorsed by university students and professors. I admit my knowledge gap that I do not know the answers, and it is my understanding that I should not spend time on finding these answers because you should already have them. If you also admit that you do not know these answers, then I will reassess the situation and we can share the responsibility to answer these questions. —EdgarWai
If Katehi resigns, who will replace her? This question was important because there should be a basic assumption that her resignation would make things better. How do we know that the situation would be better if she was gone? This question is primarily for those who signed the petition. How did you know that things would be better without her? How did you know the person replacing her won't be worse? If you considered this question, but found it unimportant, why? If this question did not cross you, do you think that it is important now? —EW
Do you have a rubric for rating a chancellor? This question came about because the chancellor was accused for being incompetent. While competence might be relative, the concept of a rubric is implied if we believe that someone's skill can be evaluated. A rubric is also helpful if we need to select a new chancellor, and will continue to serve as an asset to share our expectation of the chancellor. How do you know if the chancellor got an F instead of a C-, or perhaps still an A? People who say she is incompetent have a rubric, at least in their minds. Could you articulate that rubric you use to evaluate her? Who do you compare her against to set the curve? —EW
- In the days after Nov18, I read an article online about a former chancellor (perhaps from another university), trying to teach Katehi how to handle student protest. I apologize that I do not have a link to that article. In that article, the author was trying to teach the Chancellor the common administrative tactics to ignore the protesters, and to always stay on the moral high ground to make the protesters look bad. Here it was, an experience chancellor trying to teach Katehi to ignore the protesters. Based on this, I felt that Katehi was at least better than that author. —EW
Do you know the responsibilities of the chancellor? To have a rubric, you would need to know the responsibilities of the role. Do you know it? I did not, and I still don't. Therefore I couldn't tell if the chancellor should resign. Could someone state her roles and how she had failed? —EW
What is your overall strategy to counter the tuition hike? Resignation is not a strategy, just an event within a course of events. What are you trying to do after she resigns? How does that stabilize the financial situation? How do you know that the chancellor is a problem, and not one of the people who have been trying to solve the financial problem? Do you have a strategy you know would work without the chancellor or a replacement for her? —EW
Because of her actions, or lack of actions, since the event itself. She has been slow to take responsibility, slow to condemn the actions, dribbled out bits of information (some of it conflicting), and not shown any indication that she is capable of bringing about real change. She reacts to events and to negative publicity, rather than being proactive. This was a reason someone posted. This reason does not address my concern because it does not matter how badly her action is perceived. These reasons only justify for an apology, but not a resignation. A resignation is a termination of one's role in the strategic operation of UC Davis, which is a mini-society. The underlying question should be do you know someone better than her? You cannot take out an organ without an organ ready for transplant. The underlying question is more important because if no one is better than her, it doesn't matter how much you dislike her. That will not change the fact that there is no one to replace her. In that case, the correct strategy should be to work with what there is until a better replacement is found. For this effect, I think that if the protesters don't yet have a replacement candidate, they should form a team to look for a new chancellor. That is an important task if you only want to work with her temporarily. If her resignation is supposed to be a trivial matter, please explain. —EW
The decision to call the Police after Mrak Hall eviction This question is for those who believe that calling the Police was obviously wrong. Many people believe that calling the Police on Nov18 was the wrong call, but much fewer opposed calling the Police on Nov16 (perhaps they simply did not know about it). On Nov16, about 30 police officers were called to evict occupiers from Mrak Hall. Many people make it sound so obvious that Nov18 was the wrong call. However, if you consider that Nov16 ended peacefully, why shouldn't the police be called again on Nov18? Do you also believe that calling the police on Nov16 was also wrong? —EW
The accusation that the police forced open protesters mouths One of the most incriminating statement made in the Brown's letter was this: "When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats." There was no evidence that this happened. Did Brown explain or withdraw that statement? If Brown saw no evidence that this happened, Brown should withdraw that statement are rewrite the petition. Not doing so would be unethical and dishonest.
Questions about the Events
Did the Chancellor give permission for the protesters to stay on the Quad in the night of Nov17? Someone mentioned that there was an agreement on Nov17 night that the Chancellor let the occupiers stay on the quad. Did it happen? How was the agreement communicated? What was the agreement? This letter is important because its absence would demonstrates how information is passed and qualified among the protesters. Since the beginning of Nov18, the protesters had used every opportunity they found to accuse the Admin of wrongdoing. According to the Fact Sheet, the Admin never said that they agreed for the overnight encampment on Nov17. However, the notion that Katehi and the protesters made such agreement showed up from time to time: Nov20, Jan12. If the agreement existed, the protesters should have taken this opportunity to attack the Admin for hiding this agreement. Not making this attack is not a sign that the protesters were being lenient, but that the agreement did not exist. Therefore, if that agreement existed, the protesters should prove it and expose the deception in the Fact Sheet. If it does not exist, the protesters should examine who in the group was spreading false information. —EW
Highlights on Differences in Perception
March 6 ACLU plaintiffs video
- At 0:22, SG described that the police was marching toward them as if it was "some kind of war". The police was in formation and was moving in an organized manner. —EW
- At 1:50, regarding the 81% tuition hike, SG said that she won't be finishing the next 3 years of school. Even without the 81% hike, attending UC for the whole 4 years is not the most affordable option. Many people still can't get any higher education at all, nor adequate K-12 education. In the recent years, the overall CA funding for Higher Education did not decrease, but the funding per student did. Without any new income, increasing funding for Higher Ed would mean reduced funding for other services. This is an important issue and should be systematically discussed. —EW
- At 2:00, SG: What I want to get out of the suit is for free speech to be heard. The police came to enforce the policy that prohibits overnight camping. That had nothing to do with free speech. —EW
- At 2:25, FS: For peaceful protesters to be attacked by the same people who protect them, that's a big deal. Being peaceful does not automatically free a person from being a threat. The police is not there to protect just the protesters but also anyone around them. In a nutshell, it is difficult to tell who is innocent and who is malicious. When a person understands this difficulty, they do not intentionally push the boundaries of law enforcement, because they already know that the system is full of vulnerabilities. I don't know how to explain because it is dangerous to talk about vulnerabilities in public safety. —EW
- At 3:00, DB: The system might not be actually on my side. It is a risk of too much generalization to think in terms of "sides". In this case, the problem was about encampment overnight. The eviction notice did not prohibit protest. The protesters could have just continued the next Monday. —EW
2012-03-06 12:28:43 Thoroughly disappointed in the legal maneuverings of the UCDPD Union in attempting to delay/prohibit the reports surrounding this and other incidents on campus. —Wes-P
2012-03-06 23:03:01 Where is the citation that said A. Lee is the only officer represented by the FUPOA? —EdgarWai
- Answer: It was not just A.Lee: v720. Thank you for the update. —EW
2014-02-20 14:42:50 Destroyed UCD's little reputation that it had. Instead of "one of those UC campuses," it's now "the pepperspray campus." —JimPage