Op-ed: Cool the rhetoric and follow UCD’s cultural norms
By John Poulos
The sight of UC Davis police Lt. John Pike spraying the seated protesters in the day-old Occupy UC Davis encampment with pepper spray provoked rage, disgust and fear in the campus community. Pike’s conduct is most probably an excessive use of force and thus unlawful.
But I will not comment on the legality of Pike’s conduct as that ultimately will be resolved in legal proceedings. Nor will I comment on the legal redress available to the injured students.
How did this happen? It begins with the UCD policy preventing encampments on the campus. Chancellor Linda Katehi decided that the tents must be removed to enforce the no-encampment policy. The chancellor called the UCD police to remove the tents and in doing so she “…directed (the) police only to take down the tents. … I explicitly directed the chief of police that violence should be avoided at all costs. It was the absolute last thing I ever wanted to happen. … My instructions were for no arrests and no police force.” (Town_hall_notes_112211.pdf posted on the UC Davis website).
But, as we have seen, the police ignored her and pepper-sprayed the seated protesters.
Did Chancellor Katehi obstruct the federal constitutional rights of the protesting students when the tents were removed initially?
It would be easy for a non-lawyer chancellor to focus on the tents and their removal without understanding that the tents are an integral part of the exercise of the First Amendment rights involved in this dispute. The students are exercising their rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to petition their government (i.e., the chancellor) for a redress of their campus-related grievances.
The constitutional law governing classic exercises of these rights, when they are bonded to action (the raising and maintaining of the tents on the Quad), is complex and evolving. It is well beyond the scope of this essay to discuss this topic in a meaningful way. But the important point is that, from all of the currently available evidence, it did not occur to the chancellor that the removal of the tents would stifle the students’ exercise of their constitutional rights.
In short, to date, there is no evidence that the chancellor meant to trample the constitutional rights of the students when she ordered the police to remove the tents.
Finally, was it a mistake to call the campus police to remove the tents? The campus culture, established by the patterns of interaction on our campus for well over half a century, provides an answer to this question. So what are the applicable cultural norms?
First, the norms recognize that trust and confidence, among students, teachers and the administration, is the bedrock upon which all learning (and research) at UC Davis is based. Accordingly, the resolution of disputes between students and the administration must be carefully crafted to foster the trust and confidence of the entire campus community.
Second, campus disputes must be resolved within the student-teacher-administrator relationship, if at all possible. The campus police are “outsiders” to the normal dispute resolution process and should never be called in to intervene in campus life unless it is necessary to immediately protect students, faculty and others from physical violence, or to prevent the immediate serious damage, loss or destruction of valuable campus property. Calling in the police should be a last-resort measure.
Third, in keeping with the first two norms, the chancellor has the personal responsibility to roll up her sleeves, descend from the top floor of Mrak Hall (fondly known as “the Tower of Power”) and attempt to resolve all major student-administration disputes by negotiation and compromise, if at all possible. From the available evidence today, the chancellor did not do so before the police were called.
If one is to find fault with the chancellor, it is that she did not proceed according to our cultural norms. This is an important, though perhaps understandable, mistake given the fact that she is relatively new to the campus.
Does this mistake justify a call for the chancellor’s resignation? No. Who would take the chancellorship of a university that required unerring perfection? So let’s cool the rhetoric, scrutinize the forthcoming reports and follow the UCD cultural norms as we move forward together.
— John Poulos of Davis is an emeritus law professor at UC Davis, who was active in campus and universitywide governance for 35 years.
Short URL: http://www.davisenterprise.com/?p=110437
View this story on page A10
Posted by Special to The Enterprise
on Nov 29 2011.
Last Login:
Filed under Columns. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
I find it interesting that your opinion is based on a statement made by the very person at the heart of the controversy.
Perhaps the appropriate time to state “there is no evidence” would be after an investigation determines whether or not there is evidence.
To say that her decision to call in the police at a moment of crisis was an “understandable mistake,” is a lame excuse. She is in the ultimate position of authority, and she was apparently chosen for that position because she was expected to have the wisdom to make those decisions. She demonstrated that she’s the wrong person for the job. She failed in one of the most important decisions she’ll ever have to make, and her failure is not understandable, it demonstrates that she is the wrong person for the job. In matters of the students’ safety, including their right to do what students everywhere can and should do — demonstrate for or against a principle, and resist passively those who demand they cease demonstrating, the students’ rights are absolute and guaranteed by the constitution. The chancellor demonstrated a willingness to deny those rights, and by her weak and unclear directions to an untrained and apparently vindictive and punishing police force, she put the health and safety of those students in jeopardy. She seems like a nice lady, but she should go.
I find it odd that her instructions to the police did not appear publicly until the Nov. 22 meeting. Perhaps legally, she couldn’t come right out and say what her instructions were, but I cannot fathom why it would have taken 5 days to revel these “explicit” instructions that she had given to the police.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau’s campus police report to the chancellor and the campus police take direction from the chancellor. University of California (UC) campus chancellors vet their campus police protocols. Birgeneau allowed pepper spray and use of batons to be included in his campus police protocols.
Chancellor Birgeneau’s campus police use brutal baton jabs on students protesting increases in tuition. UC Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau and UC Davis Chancellor Katehi are in dereliction of their duties.
Birgeneau and UC Davis Chancellor need to quit or be fired for permitting the brutal outrages on students protesting tuition increases.
Opinions? Email the UC Board of Regents marsha.kelman@ucop.edu