18 February 2012

Vote of Confidence

As expected, UC Davis faculty have defeated a no-confidence motion questioning Chancellor Katehi's leadership, and they have done so by a large margin (70% of the votes cast). Nothing new, especially faculty in the applied sciences have been supporting the Chancellor for a long time, and she has been particularly good to them, pushing forward with the plan to collect increased funding in grants support and private donations (not to mention student tuition, especially from international and out of state students – although nothing on the scale pursued by Berkeley and UCLA).

What is surprising is that the third motion – which condemned police responses to the November 18 protest – carried by a large but not nearly unanimous margin. The motion
  1.  condemns both the dispatch of police and use of excessive force in response to non-violent protests on November 18, 2011;
  2. opposes violent police response to non-violent protests on campus;
  3. demands that police deployment against protestors be considered only after all reasonable efforts have been exhausted and with direct consultation with Academic Senate leadership. 
These are all pretty straightforward points, which in very similar form have all been endorsed by the Chancellor herself and her supporters. And yet 343 senate faculty decided to register their opposition by voting against the motion. One has to wonder, what were they thinking?


  1. Aren't you forgetting the two more parts of that motion:
    4. Accepts Chancellor Linda Katehi’s good faith apology.
    5. Expresses confidence in Chancellor Linda Katehi’s leadership and efforts to place UC Davis among the top 5 public universities in the nation.

    It is my understanding that those in favour of this motion are (logically) in favour of *all* its parts, while a disagreement with any of these parts would result in a "no" vote. At least that's how I would treat this five-pronged motion were I in Davis (and yes, I would not support the aforementioned parts).

  2. I agree with the assessment, anon, but I was addressing the third motion, whereas you are quoting the second one (which comprises all five items).

    You are absolutely right that one should vote for a motion if, and only if, one supports all its parts.