Op-ed: Reviewing the case for Katehi’s resignation
By Nathan Brown
Immediately following the events of Nov. 18 at UC Davis, which have come to be known as “the pepper-spray incident,” I wrote an open letter to Chancellor Linda Katehi demanding her resignation. Since then, calls for the chancellor’s resignation have continued to grow. These have been issued by:
* A petition signed by more than 110,000 people;
* The board of the Davis Faculty Association;
* The majority of the faculty in the physics department;
* The English department;
* The department of comparative literature;
* The Program in Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies;
* A group of faculty in the history department;
* The outgoing chairman of the UCD Graduate Student Association;
* The general assembly of the UCD student movement;
* A no-confidence letter signed by dozens of faculty from many different departments; and
* An international letter of solidarity declaring an academic boycott of UCD until the chancellor’s resignation.
It is no small thing for the majority of the faculty in two of the largest and most important departments in the sciences and humanities, physics and English, to call for the resignation of a university chancellor. It is even more significant when this call is joined by other departments and by more than 100,000 people, including thousands of UCD students, faculty, staff and alumni, as well as residents of the city of Davis.
Despite the chancellor’s efforts to sow ambiguity concerning her orders to police, these calls for her resignation are ultimately grounded in an irrefutable fact: One week after the chancellor of UC Berkeley ordered riot police to remove an encampment on that campus, and one week after student and faculty demonstrators were brutally beaten by those police, Chancellor Katehi made the same decision in the same circumstances at UC Davis. She also ordered riot police to remove an encampment, and the same result, followed: police violence against students.
The decision to send riot police onto our campus under these circumstances was not a mistake or an oversight, but the repetition of a dangerous failure of leadership by another UC chancellor just nine days earlier. Considering the severe consequences of that failure for our students and for the reputation of our university, demands for the chancellor’s resignation are far from hasty or ill-considered. Rather, they acknowledge that while the chancellor already had ample opportunity to learn the lesson of what happened at Berkeley, she either failed or refused to do so.
Chancellor Katehi has said she accepts “full responsibility” for the events of Nov. 18. Those of us calling for her resignation agree that she is fully responsible, and we demand that she accept the consequences of that responsibility by stepping down.
Since Nov. 18, the inconsistency of the chancellor’s response to calls for her resignation has not alleviated but rather exacerbated her failure of leadership. On the one hand, she has accepted full responsibility; on the other, she has attempted to displace blame onto the vice chancellor and the police. As faculty and students have pointed out, the investigations organized by UC Davis and the UC Office of the President are riddled with conflicts of interest that belie their supposed independence and objectivity.
The cover provided by these investigations now allows the chancellor to respond to direct questions concerning her decisions on Nov. 18 by saying she is no longer at liberty to speak about the matter. While the chancellor emphasizes the need for “dialogue,” student and faculty forums organized by the administration have determined who can speak through a lottery system that seriously undermines any genuinely open conversation about her capacity to lead the university.
Meanwhile, articles have brought to light Chancellor Katehi’s co-authorship of a report recommending the return of militarized police to Athens Polytechnic University as a deterrent to the “politicization” of the campus, as well as her involvement with a program of information sharing between American university campuses and the FBI. These reports are troubling evidence of an ongoing effort to quell and suppress political dissent on university campuses through the use of policing and surveillance.
Amid these developments, the UC Davis administration has now announced the composition of a new Chancellor’s Advisory Board, which, we are told, will help to guide our university into the future. This board includes the CEOs of Bechtel and of Chevron, as well as the senior vice president of Bank of America Merrill Lynch. It also includes the principal of McGill University, who, twice in November 2011, ordered riot police onto that campus — police who also used pepper-spray against peaceful protesters. And it includes M.R.C. Greenwood, former UC provost, who left her post at the UC amid a scandal over improper hiring practices and conflicts of interest.
In other words, in the midst of international condemnation concerning the suppression of free speech and political dissent through police violence on our campus, Chancellor Katehi has chosen to surround herself with university administrators who have also used riot police to quell student protest and who have resigned amid scandals concerning the inappropriate use of administrative power. She has chosen to surround herself with the CEOs of corporations tied to war profiteering and environmental catastrophes.
While the chancellor now pretends to support the efforts of students and faculty to defend the public mission of the UC system, the composition of her new Advisory Board exemplifies a different vision: a future in which the shared governance of the university is replaced by ties to corporate interests that hasten, rather than struggle against, the privatization of the UC system.
What these developments since Nov. 18 confirm is what many students and faculty already realized then: that the chancellor’s decision to deploy riot police against students demonstrating in defense of public education was no “mistake” and had nothing to do with the “health and safety” of the campus community. Rather, it was the political content of the students’ protest that had to be suppressed due to the chancellor’s own political commitment and her own vision for the future of UC Davis: a commitment to the privatization of a great public university and a vision in which the interests of corporations and administrators take precedence over those of students.
Those of us calling for the chancellor’s resignation do not share that vision. There are many of us, and that is encouraging. For the good of the university, we continue to insist that the chancellor needs to step down.
— Nathan Brown is a professor of English at UC Davis. Reach him at ntbrown@ucdavis.edu
Short URL: http://www.davisenterprise.com/?p=115722
View this story on page B5
Posted by Special to The Enterprise
on Dec 16 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
Something to consider; is Chancellor Katehi actually a provocateur for the administration, FBI, regents, using the students to justify her future actions? Then quietly slipping back behind the support system being created.
Even if you assumed that all faculty members from the listed departments/programs were in favor of Katehi’s resignation, this would give you a list of 191 faculty members. Many of the 150 or so Davis Faculty Association members are also in these departments, but even if they were not, you are talking about a vocal group of UC Davis faculty that may not represent the majority.
For 2010, UC Davis lists 1,267 ‘ladder faculty’ and 1,002 ‘other faculty’:
http://facts.ucdavis.edu/employee_population_by_fund_source.lasso
This suggests to me that the vast majority of UC Davis faculty have *not* called for Kathei’s resignation. Indeed we have already seen a list of over 250 faculty members actively voice their support for her:
http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-of-support-for-ucdavis.html
The Davis Faculty Association did not support the call for Katehi’s resignation. Rather, it was a quorum of the DFA board. The DFA membership rejected the board’s call. See “Member Survey Results” on http://ucdfa.org/
That’s very interesting. If the DFA board didn’t get majority support from its membership in asking Chancellor Katehi to resign, then I might conjecture that a big majority of the faculty actively or tacitly supports her at this time. DFA members are about 1/10 of the Academic Senate faculty, but they are about 1/3 of the signatories of the petition to ask her to resign.
Beyond that, the DFA board apparently took an undemocratic step when they fired off their letter in less than 24 hours. They admit as much in their “member survey results” announcement. They also admit that it’s a bit thin to claim that the board only spoke for itself. But they still rationalize their decision in the same announcement.
At the very least, if they want a healthy discussion, then they shouldn’t act defensive or frustrated if many and probably most of the faculty disagree with them.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would not want her resignation unless she benefited them, personally, at the expense of UC Davis as an institution.
The claim by Mr. Brown that the Chairman of the UCD Graduate Student Association supports the resignation of Chancellor Katehi is false. As the current Chair of the UCD GSA, I have never made this claim. The official GSA response to the events is located at: http://gsa.ucdavis.edu/GSA_Agendas_and_Minutes/2011-12?action=Files&do=view&target=GSA%20Letter%20of%20Approved%20Resolutions.pdf
I refer to the statement by Brian Riley, outgoing chair of the GSA:
http://gsa.ucdavis.edu/2010-2011_GSA_Chair
I will ask the Enterprise to print a correction, specifying that I refer to the statement of outgoing GSA Chair Brian Riley.
I also submitted to the Enterprise a version of this Op-Ed with links to documents and source material, though these could not be printed. Should anyone like these I would be happy to provide them by email.
There’s also the fact that many of the same faculty appear across these different bullet points. For instance, Nathan Brown is on the DFA board, and in the English department, and he signed the no-confidence letter.
Dear Greg, this reasoning of this Op-Ed does not rely upon the *number* of faculty who support the resignation of the Chancellor. That number is indeterminate. It simply cites the departments and groups that have called for the Chancellor’s resignation. It notes the significance of the fact that the majority of the faculty in two of the largest departments in the sciences and humanities have called for the resignation of the Chancellor of a major research university. That does not happen everyday, and that fact alone is a serious problem for UC Davis under its current leadership.
But more importantly, this Op-Ed makes an *argument* in support of calls for the Chancellor’s resignation, dealing in particular with matters of ongoing concern since Nov. 18. It is that argument that needs to be addressed. I and others are well aware that many people do share Chancellor Katehi’s vision for the future of UC Davis, as exemplified by the composition of her advisory board, and therefore think she is the right person for the job. That is an unfortunate situation, for the reasons argued above.
moveon
Dr Brown – thanks so much for your courage in speaking out so clearly and intelligently, I find it inspiring. And hard to fathom that so many others have joined the public call for her resignation. Very impressive.
The CEOs of Bechtel and Chevron are probably on the advisory panel because they’re successful ALUMNI with executive leadership experience.
Daniel,
I would argue that I’m also a successful alumni with executive leadership experience, albeit not the CEO of a corporation whose aim is to exploit every exploitable resource on earth (including…ahem…students). Students are being treated as expendable resources at UC Davis. And once you’ve become an Alumni you’ve run your course – unless of course you have more money to give. I have been a member of the Cal Aggie Alumni Association since the date of my graduation. I’ve given money to the University. I’ve been an employee of it. I’ve employed UC Davis students. I’ve given guest lectures at UC Davis. I’ve mentored them. I’ve befriended them. And I demonstrated with them – only to be beaten and thrown in jail, called an “outside agitator,” a “non-UC Davis affiliate,” and coerced to sign a contract stating that I would not, under threat of arrest, enter campus. There are hundreds of thousands of successful alumni – alumni whose interests lie in public education, not privatization of the commons.
This “advisory panel” is a ruse.
The CEO’s are also held with great disdain by the vast majority of the American public. That would be the people who vote. The word “successful” has a much broader meaning than “has figured out how to make a lot of money at others’ expense.”
Let’s keep in mind that it is not unheard of for a high-level UC administrator to resign under pressure from public opinion. Former UC President Dynes resigned after an Oct. 2007 visit from a WASC accreditation team. Here’s the accreditation team’s report:
http://gsa.ucdavis.edu/2010-2011_GSA_Chair?action=Files&do=view&target=2007_WASC_special_visit_team_report.pdf
See also:
http://www.nytimes.com/uwire/uwire_AQCH081420074805528.html
A small correction to my prior comment: Dynes announced his resignation before the Oct. 2007 WASC team visit, but had been under pressure from public opinion to resign before then. See also: http://chronicle.com/article/U-of-California-s-President/39383
Very interesting coverage of Katehi and company being caught in flat out lies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-ostertag/uc-davis-pepper-spray_b_1161409.html
——————–
After the hearing at the state Capitol on December 14
“I’ve been contacting you every single day, calling your office, sending you emails, and your assistants said they passed the messages along,” Jerika told the Chancellor. “You’ve never responded to me.”
“Well, I’ve asked them to set an appointment with you,” Katehi replied.
“No, you haven’t,” Heinze insisted. “You absolutely have not.”
A man in the Chancellor’s entourage quickly buttonholed Jerika off to the side and told her that her meeting with the Chancellor had been set for the following Monday. “How could you possibly know that?” Jerika replied. “You don’t even know my name.”
——————–
The Chancellor claimed that no Allison worked in her office.
Huff Post calls Katehi’s office the next day: A woman named Allison answered, “Chancellor’s office…”
——————–
Seems the Chancellor has met someone that does not forgive, does not forget.
I am an alumnus of UC Davis. I received both my BA and MA from UC Davis. “Chancellor” Katehi is a full-blown embarrassment to this fine university. Every time I read about something she has said or done, I am astounded at the lack of skills she bears in her current position. Most recently, she required the presence of my tax dollar-paid public relations staff members for the simple task of sitting down and having a conversation with a student who had been pepper sprayed. It is beyond my complete comprehension how someone who has talked her way into a salary of over $400K lacks the skills and abilities to hold a conversation with a student without a team of “experts” by her side. I have connected with many, many people from all over the world who cannot grasp how she can possibly remain in this position and I have no answer to give them. I have completely removed my bequeathment that had been destined for the UC Davis Veterinary school as I have no desire to be associated with this institution so long as the UC Regents lack the required courage to do the right thing and immediately remove her from her post. The PR work that has been done (the sandwiches bought for students, the advertisements suddenly appearing on the UC Davis FB page) are prime examples of her desperation and ineptness. UC Davis deserves so much better than this cartoon character.
[...] been made most prominently by English Professor Nathan Brown, immediately after the event and morerecently. Brown argues that police violence against student protestors was not “a mistake” but a [...]