Chancellor facing calls for resignation after pepper spray incident
by Brian Leubitz
In case you aren’t one of the approximately 1.5 million viewers of the Davis pepper spray video, here it is, the video that changed Chancellor Linda Katehi’s life.
The pepper spraying of students was without a doubt overkill for the situation. After all, who would it really have hurt to allow the students to remain on the Quad. Instead, Davis administrators are now dealing with national scrutiny on their police policies, pay levels (officers make twice what those who actually teach), and their level of respect for their customers/students.
Chancellor Katehi is desperately trying to cling to her job. After the silent walk of shame caught on video, she today addressed the students:
When Chancellor Linda Katehi took the stage at a rally of students held to protest last week’s pepper-spraying by police she was apologetic.
“I’m here to apologize,” said Katehi. “I really feel horrible for what happened on Friday.” (SacBee)
When you click through to that link you will see something of a live-blog and video of both Katehi’s apology and of the tents returning to the UC-Davis Quad. One has to imagine that pepper spray is not an option this go-round. Katehi will continue to face increasing scrutiny as she is trying the time-tested “name a panel” stalling technique.
The Davis panel is supposed to return a report within 30 Days, and then the matter will be handled further. Legislators, including Sen. Ye, have been calling for something more substantial, but no additional word has emerged.
The student protesters are calling for a boycott on Nov. 28.
I’ve strapped on my asbestos suit, because I am certain to get flamed. I’m taking the police’ side on this one. I’ll get to the Occupy movement in a moment, but for now, let’s pretend that it was not part of the Occupy movement protesting the basic unfairness of our economic system, in large part expressed in higher tuition fees, tremendous student debt and poor job prospects for graduates. Let’s pretend it was a pro-life protest and had occupied the same square for the same amount of time.
The police get a call that an unlawful protest is taking place and they need to arrest those who broke the law. We can certainly argue about the validity of laws that prevent the pro-life protesters from laying claim to a piece of land for an indefinite amount of time. Perhaps you think that there should be no limits to those who would set up camp for the purpose of protest. Are there time limits? Hours? Days? Months? Years? Decades? What is the limit and how is it determined?
So the police get there and find someone breaking the law. They make a decision to make an arrest. The arrestee is either cooperating with the arrest or is resisting and the resistance can be active or passive. In the case of our make believe pro-life protesters, the resistance is passive. If there is passive resistance should the police decline to arrest? Or should the police only make arrests when the arrestee cooperates?
Let’s just assume that we think that the police should not be influenced about arrests based on passive resistance. The next question is “how much force is appropriate to make the arrest”. In general, the level of force should be proportional to the situation. For example, they should not start shooting people. They should not use Tasers. They should not use batons or sticks. The minimum amount of violence and harm is required for this kind of situation.
If that is the case, pepper spray is not such a bad option. It cases no permanent damage (please correct me if I’m wrong), no blood, no broken bones, just some stinging and then the arrests. I have been pepper sprayed (long story) and didn’t enjoy the experience, but the effects lasted only a few minutes. I cannot speak to the experience of those who were pepper sprayed in Davis, but I would be surprised if they are feeling the effects right now.
I think that the anger of the protesters is entirely legitimate, but it is the banks and Wall Street and the corrupt, corrosive system that enriches the rich and screws the little guy that deserve the pointy tip of the anger. The police are just the ones who are called on to make the arrests. I don’t think of them as my friend or my enemy. I view them as municipal workers who are called on to do a difficult and sometimes dangerous job. Some are arrogant pricks, but most do their job well.
Ok. I’ve had my say. Let the flames begin.
False dichotomy. There is a long standing tradition of passive arrests when people are resisting passively, or non-violently. One officer puts his/her arms under the arms of the arrestee and drags them off to the squad car. Many times a second officer helps: Simple, clean, no violence.
The pepper spray was not called for and there was no need to arrest anyone. Access was not being blocked, no one was in any conceivable danger and the presence of more than one or two police was simply a provocation. Fortunately, the demonstrators didn’t rise to the bait.
Didn’t the regents raise here salary before she was hired ?
If memopry strikes me right, they raised the UC Davis Chancelor’s salaray by 20% or some outrageous amount before she was hired
If membory serves me well, there was a scandal at the school she left before coming to Davis
Wasn’t it Admissions to her previus school ??
How did the Beloved Board of Regents decide she needed an outrageous salary increase ??
per Google:
‘…As chancellor of UC Davis, Katehi will receive an annual salary of $400,000. This is a 12.4 percent increase above her current salary of $356,000 at the University of Illinois. Vanderhoef currently earns $315,000 as UC Davis chancellor.
UC seeks to be competitive in the employment markets relevant to its faculty and staff hires, and the base salary of $400,000 is still substantially below the 2008 median of $628,000 among chancellors at UC’s comparison group of 14 public and private U.S. campuses with medical schools.
Other benefits
Consistent with university policy, Katehi also will receive:
University-provided housing;
An annual automobile allowance of $8,916;
A relocation allowance of $100,000 (25 percent of base salary) to offset various costs associated with her relocation to California, subject to proportional repayment if the position is resigned within the first four years of appointment;
Payment of packing and moving costs for household effects, library and related equipment;
Reimbursement of travel expenses for business-related visits to the campus during the transition period; and
Eligibility for a Mortgage Origination Program loan and payment of relocation costs if she continues in a tenured faculty position after stepping down as chancellor. An annual allocation of campus funding will be established if an active research program is maintained during the appointment as chancellor.
Katehi will receive standard pension, health and welfare, and senior management benefits, including senior management life insurance, executive business travel insurance, executive salary continuation for disability, accrual of sabbatical leave and an administrative fund.
Katehi’s husband, Spyros Tseregounis – who like Katehi did his graduate study at UCLA, completing a Ph.D. in chemical engineering – holds an adjunct faculty position at the University of Illinois. UC Davis will be considering him for a similar or equivalent appointment…’
I hope that’s enough for her !!!
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
http://davisvanguard.org/index…
This morning’s Chicago Tribune has now for the first time directly linked incoming UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi to the growing University of Illinois influence peddling scandal.
The revelations link a politically connected Greek Orthodox priest trying to get help for the daughter of a family friend so that she could attending the University of Illinois. In the course of doing so he reached out to a campaign adviser to State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. A few months later, that priest aided Giannoulias with a large fundraiser that needed him at least $120,000, according to the Tribune article.
The Tribune goes on write:
“Internal campus documents released this week show Giannoulias’ adviser Endy Zemenides sent information about the student to U. of I. Provost Linda Katehi in February 2008. He e-mailed from his law office, but copied his “Alexi for Illinois” campaign address on the exchange.”
Katehi then directly sends the information to the vice provost and appears to direct him to help by stating who the email originated from.
“Katehi, who was born in Greece, then forwarded the information to her vice provost.
“Endy Zemenedis [sic] is the campaign manager for the State Treasurer,” she wrote. “This is the application of the daughter of a fairly prominent Greek family in Chicago.”
After Katehi’s inquiry, admissions officers decided that they would admit the student in the spring, regardless of whether there was any wait-list movement at the Urbana-Champaign campus. Not every student on the wait list that year was accepted.”
According to the Tribune, Katehi called her actions appropriate and suggested the reference to Zemenides’ position were “not meant to carry any extra weight.”
“It is absolutely appropriate for me to pass along such a status inquiry,” she said in a statement. “I mentioned Mr. Zemenides’ title, simply because that was how I knew him.”
The article later mentions:
About a week after Zemenides inquired about the teen’s application, the head of the admissions office told Katehi that the student had been placed on the wait list because she attended a competitive south suburban high school where, records show, 127 of her classmates earned admission that year.
Then-Vice Provost Ruth Watkins suggested accepting the applicant after the traditional deadline, a move often used by university officials to keep clouted admissions from raising eyebrows at major feeder schools.
“A late decision would probably be best given the nature of the high school,” Watkins wrote.
Katehi was included in the e-mail exchange, but did not respond to Watkins. When Keith Marshall, the university’s associate provost for enrollment management, agreed to the plan and said the student would be on the list for May admits, Katehi acknowledged the note.
“Excellent!” she wrote.
Finally they make reference to Ms. Katehi’s situation in Davis:
Katehi’s involvement in the inquiry again raises questions about her knowledge of the clout lists. She has declared publicly that she knew nothing about the Category I system, though she has overseen the admissions department since 2006. Katehi maintains she never pushed for a student’s entry and did not interfere with this particular case.
The dust-up over Category I has followed her to the University of California-Davis, where she is set to become chancellor next month. U. of I. President B. Joseph White has told California officials that Katehi did not know about the practice, but state Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) — who has called for Katehi’s contract to be rescinded — said the newly released e-mail exchange “just creates more of a cloud.”
“What this tells me is she clearly knew that there were, in fact, certain kinds of admissions that were given special treatment,” he said. “It’s an affront to every parent in Illinois.”
Recall that the University’s initial response to this incident was to forward an email from the incoming Chancellor.
In it she claimed no knowledge of the scandal or involvement in the process.
“However, I want to be clear to you and others at UC Davis that I was not involved in the admissions decisions that were the subject of the Tribune’s “Clout Goes to College” investigation. Because of the governmental relations aspect and the involvement of University of Illinois System trustees, the so-called “Category I” admissions process was not part of the regular admissions system and was handled at a higher level in the institution.”
When her name began to appear on emails and her direct line subordinate was shown on those emails directing preferential treatment, she responded:
“At the University of Illinois, there are officials above the Provost (including the Chancellor) who communicate directly with the admissions director without going through the Provost’s office. Chancellor-designate Katehi has been clear that she was not aware of or involved in these matters.”
However, the continued revelations show that if she was not aware or involved in these matters, she should have at least known about them.
The Vanguard is awaiting response from the University and Senator Yee’s office. We will likely run a follow-up with those responses.
Senator Yee’s office has issued the following statement:
“This is not the type of leadership we need at the helm of UC Davis. Again, I encourage President Yudof to uphold the integrity of the university and immediately put a hold on Ms. Katehi’s offer and determine if it should be completely rescinded.
“President Yudof needs to take his head out of the sand. Continuing this ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy will severely damage the University of California. The taxpayers and students deserve better from their public university administration.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The Chancellor should resign next week.
Not because of what she did, but because something very evil and horrific at the university happened on her watch.
The Japanese understand this very well. In the US, we tend to hide behind the Law (if not convicted then no shame). UC-Davis has been tarnished by this incident. To show that the University “gets it”, and is moving forward, it must re-establish its integrity. That simply cannot happen with the same person at the top. How can we be sure that this ugly incident won’t re-occur? Because the people involved have been replaced to ensure it does not repeat itself.
The Police Chief, the Chancellor and maybe 1-2 others must go to start the recovery process. But I shutter to think what her “parachute” might look like…. after all, she was getting $400k, free housing, over $700 a month toward the lease of a car and other perks… not sure what she actually had to spend her money on… maybe gum.
Depending on how successful the students are in continuing the protest (after all, Finals are coming up), the Board simply must find a way to create closure… and the Chancellor may be out.
So sez me, what sez ye?
the UCD general assembly did not call for a boycott next monday the 28th (with 99.5% yes votes!), it called for a full-on general strike on campus, with the end of disrupting and preventing the UC regents conference call from taking place, both as protest for this assault on our community by the chancellor and UCDPD, and to attempt to forestall the 80% tuition hike the regents are trying to pass.
it will be very interesting to see how this all plays out after thanksgiving.