On Friday evening, November 18, UC Davis employees received an email recounting the events. Here is an excerpt…. “a number of protestors refused our warning, offering us no option but to ask the police to assist in their removal. We are saddened to report that during this activity, 10 protestors were arrested and pepper spray was used. We will be reviewing the details of the incident.” (notice please the use of the phrase NO OPTION)

The next day, November 19, Katehi held a press conference where she again reiterated that she had followed institutional protocol (This video is no longer available at Aggie TV but here is a summary at http://bmcdb.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/chancellor-katehis-press-conference-in-response-to-pepper-spray-incident-on-quad/

She then stayed in the building for another 2 hours before leaving because she didn’t feel safe because of the students that were gathered outside. When she finally walked out, the students responded with silence — they called it a walk of shame. And the UC Davis community got another message… here is an excerpt…”…. the encampment raised serious health and safety concerns, and the resources required to supervise this encampment could not be sustained, especially in these very tight economic times when our resources must support our core academic mission…. While the university has the responsibility to develop the appropriate environments that ensure the practice of these freedoms, by no means should we allow a repeated violation of these rules as an expression of personal freedom.”

Katehi also called for a review to be completed in 90 days.

It wasn’t until Monday, November 21, that Katehi apologized to the students at the assembly on the quad. Since then she has completely changed her tone — bringing food to the tents on the quad, allowing more tents to go up, holding town hall meetings for various constituencies — undergrads, grads and professional students, faculty and staff…. there are now 5 investigations that will be completed in 30 days.

She has now completely changed her interpretation of the event and seems to have got on the bandwagon for making the university economically accessible for many more students.

Given this historical record, do you think she would have gone in this direction if there had not many so many calls for her resignation?

Furthermore, her leadership in the aftermath is deplorable. She continues to speak in passive voice, claiming to take full responsibility, but in fact her letters to the UCD community were full of blame-shifting rhetoric, including blaming ‘outsider agitators,’ the police at the scene, and the activists themselves.

Finally, I would agree that she is under higher scrutiny as a woman. But crying sexism should not mean we need to excuse her actions – in fact, we should be calling for the resignation of the Cal admin as well.