Spring cleaning in Davis

The UC Davis Academic Senate special committee investigating the now infamous pepper-spraying incident of Nov. 18, 2011 issued their final report (PDF). The special committee recommends that the Davis Executive Council call for the resignations of Chancellor Linda Katehi, Vice-Chancellors John Meyer and Fred Wood, and (now retired) UCD PD Chief Annette Spicuzza.

While the UCD Executive Council fell short of endorsing the call for resignations ("at this time" as they note), they passed a formal censure of the Chancellor.

These are quite extraordinary steps for the (usually sleepy) Academic Senate to take, it remains to be seen how they will be received in Mrak Hall and in Oakland.

Leadership failure

If there is one thing the Reynoso report makes clear is that leadership failure was pervasive and widespread on Nov. 18. Here are some facts that we learned from the report, and some questions we'd like to see raised:

1. The Chancellor's "Leadership Team" convened to address "extraordinary events" on campus was in fact a half-assed affair: the "team" met by conference call, nobody kept minutes, there was no record of what was  decided.
2. The Chancellor exercised executive privilege when she shouldn't have and failed to exercise it when she should have: she is responsible for the tactical decision to remove the tents in the middle of a sunny Friday afternoon, as opposed to the wee hours of the morning, as Chief Spicuzza suggested; and she failed to communicate her indication that "no force was to be used".
3. Chief Spicuzza comes across as particularly feeble: she failed to stand up to the Chancellor as to the timing of the police action (timing was a tactical decision, which was properly the Chief's purview). And she failed to stand up to her own police officers, when they insisted on taking riot gear, pepper spray, and paint guns to the Quad. After she delegated authority for the police action to "Officer P", she was still seen on the Quad relaying orders on her cell phone and taking video of the event.
4. Officer Pike and the other unnamed police officer used an unauthorized weapon (MK-9 10% pepper spray, instead of the regular-issue MK-4 2% pepper spray), for which they had received no training, and used it improperly (MK-9 is "long range" to be used at least 6 feet from target). How and when did an unauthorized weapon end up on campus?  
5. UCDPD repeatedly failed to follow proper police procedure: the supposed "plan" was in fact not consistent with guidelines and large portions were left blank.

Two people come across as eminently reasonable in this whole fiasco. Justice Reynoso, for those who attended the meeting yesterday or logged on to the webcast, turns out to be an objective, moral, principled figure. Appointing him was one of Yudof's wisest decisions. But the other person that should be commended is Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Griselda Castro: when the "Leadership Team" went apoplectic about the presence of "non-affiliates" among the protesting students, she kept a cool head and pointed that there was no evidence to that effect. She spoke forcefully to the Leadership Team for forty minutes about the need to buy time end explore options, but she was completely ignored, and the contrary view of Vice Chancellor Meyer (Chief Spicuzza's direct superior) that the tents had to be immediately removed prevailed.

The Reynoso report

The report is out. It looks like the whole chain of command engaged in a spectacular failure of judgment. In fact, the headings of the different subsections already provide a summary of the findings: 

• There was a failure to investigate whether or not “non-affiliates” in the UC Davis Occupy encampment were present.  
• The administration decided to deploy police to remove the tents on Nov. 18 before considering other reasonable alternatives.  
• The scope of the police operation to remove the tents was ineffectively communicated, not
  clearly understood by key decision-makers, and, accordingly, could not be adequately evaluated as to its costs and consequences.  
• There were no clear lines delineating the responsibility for decision-making between civilian administrators and police.  
• There was confusion as to the legal basis for the police operation. 
• The leadership team’s informal, consensus-based decision-making process was ineffective
  for supporting a major extraordinary event.  
• The UCDPD failed to plan for the intended action according to standard operating procedures.
  Notwithstanding the deficiencies in the operations plan, the incident was not managed according to the plan.  
• The decision to use pepper spray was not supported by objective evidence and was not authorized by policy.  
• The pepper spray used, the MK- 9, First Aerosol Projector, was not an authorized weapon for use by the UCDPD.  
• There is a breakdown of leadership in the UCDPD.  
• The chancellor bears primary responsibility for the decision to deploy the police at 3 p.m. rather than during the night or early morning, which is a tactical decision properly reserved for police authorities.  
• The chancellor bears primary responsibility for the failure to communicate her position that the police operation should avoid physical force.  
• Many members of the leadership team, including the chancellor, vice chancellor Meyer, and vice chancellor Wood, share responsibility for the decision to remove the tents on Friday and, as a result, the subsequent police action against protesters.  
• Chief Spicuzza bears individual responsibility for failing to challenge the leadership team’s decision on the time of the police operation and for not clarifying the role the police were expected to play during the operation. She is also responsible for numerous deviations from best police practices both before and during the operation as detailed in the Kroll Report.
• Officer P bears individual responsibility for abdicating his duties as
  incident commander.
•  Lt. Pike bears primary responsibility for the objectively unreasonable decision to use pepper spray on the students sitting in a line and for the manner in which the pepper spray was
  used. 

It's a pretty damning indictment. One wonders which heads will roll. 

Not Surprised

Somehow we are not surprised that the long-awaited report of the Reynoso task force has yet again been delayed. This time because of a temporary restraining order being filed this morning by the police union in Alameda County Superior Court.

Could it be that the police officers involved in the pepper spraying have something that they'd rather not be made public? Don't they know that attempts to prevent the release of information are bound to make you look guilty?

There are several other investigations of the Nov. 18 pepper spraying that are still ongoing, including an internal investigation by UC PD internal affairs, which could possibly result in disciplinary actions against the officers involved (the by now infamous Lt. Pike, Chief Spicuzza, and another yet unnamed officer).

At long last

From the UC Davis Academic Senate:

The release of the Reynoso Task Force Report on the Pepper Spray Incident is scheduled for March 6. Former California Supreme Court Associate Justice Cruz Reynoso, chair of the task force, announced today that the group will outline its findings and recommendations to the UC Davis community on Tuesday, March 6 [...].  The task force findings, recommendations and background documents will be made available on the UC Davis home page at noon on Tuesday, March 6. A live webcast of the public meeting will also be accessible from the campus home page.

Their day in court

Nineteen former and current UC Davis students who were pepper-sprayed on Nov. 18 filed suit in US District Court against UC Davis officials. The University officials named as defendant in the suit are 

LINDA KATEHI, Chancellor of the University of California at Davis; RALPH J. HEXTER, Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor of the University of California at Davis; FRED WOOD, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at the University ofCalifornia at Davis; JOHN MEYER, Vice Chancellor of Administration and Resource Management at the University at California at Davis; ANNETTE SPICUZZA, Chief of the University of California at Davis Police Department; JOHN PIKE, Lt. in the University of California at Davis Police Department; and DOES 1 – 50, officers of the University of California at Davis Police Department.

The plaintiffs seek 

a declaration from the Court that campus policies and practices that led to the abuse of the plaintiffs and others offend both the state and federal constitutional guarantees of the rights to free speech and assembly and that the pepper-spraying and arrests of plaintiffs violated their state and federal constitutional rights; an injunction to prevent repetition of such a response to a non-violent protest; and compensatory and punitive damages against the individual perpetrators of the illegal acts and their  superiors who ordered, directed and/or condoned this outrageous conduct.

As to the question of whether Chancellor Katehi and her co-defendants had any direct responsibility for the events of Nov 18 (a notion that a majority of UC Davis apparently reject, as witnessed by the confidence and no-confidence motions), the suit points out:

Defendants KATEHI, HEXTER, WOOD, MEYER and SPICUZZA had an affirmative duty to properly screen, train and supervise defendants PIKE and DOE Defendants 1 through 50, but failed to do so, resulting in the actions and violations of the rights of Plaintiffs and others described herein.

 The suit alleges violations of the plaintiffs' rights as laid out in the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution (freedom of speech; illegal search and seizure; due process; respectively), as well as several articles of the California Constitution.

The plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.

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?

Backroom Deals

This past Monday, after hearing the plight of students for never-ending tuition hikes and their outrage at the trampling of their constitutional rights at Berkeley, Davis and elsewhere, the Regents of the University of California promptly reconvened to a separate, smaller room for the non-public portion of their meeting, where they provided yet another resplendent  example of their vision, leadership, and courage in steering the UC ship in these stormy waters.

Once outside of public scrutiny, the Regents promptly proceeded to approve 9.9% pay raises for three vice-chancellors (UCLA, UCI, UCSF) as well as for a number of university lawyers. But the lottery winner was indisputably UC Davis general counsel Steven Drown who got a whopping 21.9% salary raise (only UCDMC chief operating officer got a bigger raise, but medical center employees' salaries benefit from the revenue the bring to the University). Mr Drown was noted during the recent "events" at UC Davis for his very visible absence while the students' first amendment rights were being covered in orange pepper spray.

In the meantime, it looks like a section of UC Davis faculty, mostly from the sciences and engineering, have launched Operation SCA ("Save the Chancellor's Ass"). One is reminded of not too distant proceedings at Irvine, when Chancellor Drake hired, fired, and re-hired Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinski, all in the same week. UCI science and medical faculty also rose en masse to save Drake's ass, quite possibly in return for Drake's saving their asses when the Medical School was selling body parts and fertilized human eggs on the black market.

Yudof steps in

From the SF Chronicle:

On Tuesday, Yudof asked the acting police chief to get criminal charges dismissed against 10 protesters involved in Friday's demonstration and said the school would pay the demonstrators' medical bills. He also named William Bratton, a former Los Angeles police chief, to direct a review of the pepper-spray incident.

One has to say, that if those are the qualifications for leading the review of the pepper spraying "incident," a much better option was available just a few miles up the road from the President's office.

What Katehi didn't say

As we know the Davis Chancellor addressed the 5,000 participants at the rally held today on the UCD quad: the full 2:44 minutes of her emotional speech can be viewed here. She apologized for Friday's "events" and vowed to work to re-gain the students' trust. That cannot have been easy, and it certainly took courage. But equally important is what she did not say. For instance, here is something many were expecting to hear:

The Chancellor will ask the Yolo County DA to drop all charges agianst the arrested students.

This is so obvious it is a no brainer, and yet nothing was said in this respect. Here is another one:

The Chancellor will make sure that all riot control equipment on campus is removed from possession of UC PD.

Again, nothing in this direction. Or one more:

The Chancellor will make an explicit commitment to safeguard free speech and other constitutional rights on campus.

The list could go on, including working with the students to reverse tuition increases, working with faculty to restore shared governance, respect the right of workers and staff to unionize and engage in collective bargaining. But none of that was forthcoming today. Perhaps tomorrow?

The Chancellor's Conundrum

Faced with intense pressure and stinging criticism following the pepper-spraying of non-violent protesters on her campus, UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi should do what responsible administrators always do under the circumstances: find a scapegoat.

In these difficult times, the Chancellor's mind must certainly be considering the central question: who? who should I fire to save my own job?

One obvious candidate is UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza, whose transparent deception in relating Friday's events makes her a clear choice.  She declared that her officers were surrounded by a crowd and had to resort to pepper-spraying to make their way out of the difficult situation. But she should have been aware of a saying, in the language of her forebears: le bugie hanno le gambe corte — lies have short legs — and lies certainly don't go very far these days when everybody carries a high-resolution video camera in their pockets.

But scapegoating is an ancient and delicate art, whose fundamental principle is that you should go as far down the command ladder as you can get away with.

In this respect, we would like to suggest that UC Davis Police Lt. John Pike, who is the primary pepper-sprayer of the whole episode, would make a much more suitable target. The look of a VoPo in a Darth Vader costume, the nonchalant attitude with which he sprays children (children!) sitting on the ground, his leisurely stroll as he inflicts chemical burns on non-violent students, not to mention his girth (well-fed by those very students' tuition money): he's the ultimate incarnation of the banality of evil. He's absolutely perfect, the perfect fall guy. Your own job is safe, Chancellor Katehi.

UC Davis' "vision of excellence"

It seems like UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi finally succeeded in her stated goal to obtain much deserved national recognition for her campus.

Regents' retreat

Only for the fourth time in history, the UC Board of Regents has cancelled a meeting, apparently out of concern that protests planned concomitantly with the meeting might turn violent. Oh, c'mon, really? I am sure a few baton pokes from UC PD officers would have sufficed in keeping the distance between the ragged and smelly students and the highest officers of the University.

The day after

Yesterday's rallies and demonstrations were heard around the state and across the country. While mostly peaceful (except for a car window smashed at UCSC, the 880 freeway blocked in Oakland, and a tense confrontation at UCD), participation was somewhat less than expected. At each event numbers were in the hundreds, not the thousands. First-hand accounts can be found elsewhere, I just want to point out John Garamendi's expression of support for UC in the HuffPo, renewing calls to support Alberto Torrico's AB 656 introducing an oil-severance tax to support higher eduction in the state. Garamendi is one the few rational voices left in California politics.

Faculty statement in support of March 4 action

The future of the University of California, and public education in California more generally, is under extreme threat. Governor Schwarzenegger and the State Legislature have slashed funding, and the UC Regents, Office of the President, and campus administrations have responded with measures that undermine the core teaching, research, and service mission of the university: student fees have been raised dramatically, hiring has been frozen, faculty and staff have been furloughed, lecturers have been fired, and many staff positions have been consolidated or eliminated, even as salaries of the highest UC executives have been increased. Market standards have superseded the values of intellectual creativity and excellence. Next year’s planned cuts will only accelerate these trends. The defunding of public higher education makes a college education inaccessible to many Californians, especially those already most disadvantaged; it endangers the vibrancy and livelihood of the state; it lowers the quality of life of all of its inhabitants.

The Governor acknowledged that student and faculty protests have affected him. The time for more pressure is now.

We continue the fight for public education in California. On March 1, UC faculty, staff, and students will lobby the Governor and legislators in Sacramento. Then, the struggle for public education ramps up on March 4, a day of system- and state-wide actions called by students, staff, and faculty from the ten UC campuses, the Cal State University system, the Community Colleges, and K-12 schools. That day, there will be a march on Sacramento and other actions in the state capital, as well as actions on local campuses and elsewhere, to demand the restoration of high quality public education that is accessible and affordable to all. We, the undersigned UC faculty, will suspend “business as usual” and participate in the March 4th day of actions for public education.

UC faculty can add their name to the letter by pointing their browsers to http://checkingeducation.com/faculty-statement.

UC Berkeley and the 14th Amendment

On January 13 the UC Berkeley Committee on Student Conduct (CSC) placed Angela Miller, a UCB Junior, on interim  suspension, banned her from Campus property, precluded her from speaking to anyone affiliated with UC Berkeley, and evicted her from Campus housing. Ms. Miller was accused of participating in the Dec. 11, 2009 demonstration outside the Chancellor’s University House during which windows were vandalized and a concrete planter was broken. Eight people were arrested, including Ms. Miller, but given the insufficient evidence the Alameda County DA decided not to file any charges.

Evidently unhappy with this outcome, Berkeley decided to bring Ms. Miller in front a CSC panel to respond to the charges. During these proceedings  Ms. Miller was denied her right to counsel, refused access to photographic evidence (that only showed carrying a torch), and not notified of the Administration's intention to bring witnesses (who then turned out to rely in hearsay). Addressing her character and political views instead, the panel decided that Ms. Miller was a danger to the campus community, and proceeded to suspend her.

A post by UC Berkeley law students at Uncivil Procedure makes it clear that the University's proceedings violated Ms. Miller's constitutional rights to due process (as set forth in the 14th Amendment), also noting that

California law is clear that the rules governing disciplinary hearings at public universities are subject to constitutional due process guarantees.

The Uncivil Procedure post is a well-written and interesting piece: it forcefully shreds to pieces the University's charges against Ms. Miller, documents the breach of her constitutional rights, and makes a reasonable case that the CSC panel's aim was "to chill and impede student activism [...] UCB’s warning to any who dare show a contrary opinion." Somebody should be giving these law students an A.

UC Academic Council on student protests

The UC Academic Council, finally awaken from its dogmatic slumber, issued a somehwhat disingenuous statement concerning the recent student protests. The Council tries to strike a position equidistant between the acknowledgment of the sudents' reasons for their protest and their right to express those reason in a peaceful but vocal way and the Administration's reactions. Amid much mumbo-jumbo, the Council is

especially concerned about group protests in which a number of individuals attempted to move past police barricades, physically threaten and throw objects at police, and surround vehicles to trap those within.

This is disengenuous because, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no attempts by students to "physically threaten" or "throw objects" at the police. Students did surround a van in which the Regents were attempting a quick getaway at UCLA after voting to increase the fees, but they limited themselves to a sit-in around the vehicle, a well-established form of peaceful protest.

The Academic Council also "insists that uses of force by police will be subject to inquiry and review, as well as the policies that govern crowd control." Better late than never.

Here is a bit of advice: please go look at any collection of pictures from the protests that were published in any number of sites, and check out the faces of the police officers, wielding tasers and looking down with contempt bordering on hatred on students who could well have been their own sons and daughters. Clearly something is wrong.

Statement in support of the UC Mobilisation

Here is a statement in support of mobilization at UC, started by Peter Hallward (Middlesex University, London), which is currently gathering signatures:

We the undersigned declare our solidarity with University of California students, workers and staff as they defend, in the face of powerful and aggressive intimidation, the fundamental principles upon which a truly inclusive and egalitarian public-sector education system depends. We affirm their determination to confront university administrators who seem willing to exploit the current financial crisis to introduce disastrous and reactionary 'reforms' (fee-increases, lay-offs, salary cuts) to the UC system. We support their readiness to take direct action in order to block these changes.  We recognise that in times of crisis, only assertive collective action – walkouts, boycotts, strikes, occupations... – offers any meaningful prospect of democratic participation. We deplore the recent militarization of the UC campuses, and call on the UC administration to acknowledge rather than discourage the resolution of their students to struggle, against the imperatives of privatization, to protect the future of their university.

 Signed:

•    Dina Al-Kassim, Comparative Literature, UC Irvine
•    Alison Hope Alkon, Sociology, University of the Pacific
•    Eyal Amiran, Comparative Literature, UC Irvine
•    Susan Antebi, Spanish and Portuguese, University of Toronto
•    Aldo Antonelli, Philosophy, UC Davis
•    Emily Apter, Comparative Literature, NYU
•    Kiran Asher, International Development and Social Change and Women's Studies, Clark University
•    Jennifer Bajorek, Cultural Studies, Goldsmiths College
•    Mona Baker, Translation Studies, University of Manchester
•    Mieke Bal, Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis, University of Amsterdam
•    Gopal Balakrishnan, History of Consciousness, UC Santa Cruz
•    Karyn Ball, English and Film Studies, University of Alberta
•    Stephen Barker, Claire Trevor School of the Arts, UC Irvine
•    Tani E. Barlow, History, Rice University
•    LeGrace Benson, Emerita, SUNY Empire State
•    Leo Bersani, French, UC Berkeley
•    Bruce Braun, Geography, University of Minnesota
•    Nathan Brown, English, UC Davis
•    Darcy C. Buerkle, History, Smith College
•    Craig Calhoun, Sociology, NYU
•    Emma Campbell, French, University of Warwick
•    Julie Carlson, English, UC Santa Barbara
•    Anthony Carrigan, English, University of Keele
•    Amy Sara Carroll, Latina/o Studies, American Culture, English, University of Michigan
•    Allison Carruth, English, University of Oregon
•    Mari Castaneda, Communication, University of Massachusetts Amherst
•    Paula Chakravartty, Department of Communication, UMass Amherst
•    Piya Chatterjee, Women’s Studies, UC Riverside
•    Chris Chiappari, Sociology, Anthropology, St. Olaf College
•    Kyeong-Hee Choi, East Asian Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago
•    Noam Chomsky, Linguistics, MIT
•    Joshua Clover, English, UC Davis
•    Lin Chun, Department of Government, The London School of Economics and Political Science
•    Drucilla Cornell, Political Science, Women’s and Gender Studies, Comparative Literature, Rutgers University
•    Maria E. Cotera, Latina/o Studies, American Culture, Women’s Studies, University of Michigan
•    Whitney Cox, Languages and Cultures of South Asia, School of Oriental and African Studies
•    Daniela Daniele, Anglo-American Literatures, University of Udine
•    Eva von Dassow, Classical and Near Eastern Studies, University of Minnesota
•    Jodi Dean, Political Science, Hobart and William Smith Colleges
•    Richard Dienst, English, Rutgers University
•    Jackie DiSalvo, English, Baruch College, CUNY
•    Elizabeth DeLoughrey, English, UCLA
•    Sergio de la Mora, Chicana and Chicano Studies, UC Davis
•    Mattanjah S. de Vries, Chemistry and Biochemistry, UC Santa Barbara
•    Hent de Vries, Humanities Center, Philosophy, Johns Hopkins University
•    Lisa Disch, Political Science and Women’s Studies, University of Michigan
•    Ariel Dorfman, Literature, Duke University
•    Robert Dudley, Integrative Biology, UC Berkeley
•    Alexander Garcia Düttmann, Philosophy and Visual Culture, Goldsmiths University
•    Raymond Duvall, Political Science, University of Minnesota
•    Ken Ehrlich, Art Department, UC Riverside
•    Norma Field, East Asian Languages & Civilizations
•    Gail Finney, Comparative Literature and German, UC Davis
•    Paul Fleming, German, NYU
•    Aranye Fradenburg, English, UC Santa Barbara
•    Anne-Lise François, English and Comparative Literature, UC Berkeley
•    James Fujii, East Asian Language and Literatures, UC Irvine
•    John Funchion, English, University of Miami
•    Alexander Galloway, Media, Culture, Communication, NYU
•    Alexander Gelley, Comparative Literature, UC Irvine
•    Bishnupriya Ghosh, English, UC Santa Barbara
•    Rich Gibson, Education, San Diego State University
•    Jill Giegerich, Art, UC Riverside
•    Rachel Giora, Linguistics, Tel Aviv University
•    Shai Ginsburg, Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Duke University
•    Ruthann Godollei, Art, Macalester College
•    Marcial Gonzales, English, UC Berkeley
•    Manu Goswami, History, NYU
•    Yogita Goyal, English, UCLA
•    Greg Grandin, History, NYU
•    Ronald Walter Greene, Communication Studies, University of Minnesota
•    Martin Hägglund, Society of Fellows, Harvard University
•    Peter Hallward, Philosophy, Middlesex University
•    Werner Hamacher, Literature, Goethe University
•    Kristin Hanson, English, UC Berkeley
•    Harry Harootunian, History, Columbia University and Duke University
•    Michael Hardt, Literature, Duke University
•    Ulla Haselstein, American Literature, Free University of Berlin
•    Rebeca Helfer, English, UC Irvine
•    Cressida J. Heyes, Philosophy, University of Alberta
•    Katsuya Hirano, History, Cornell University
•    Dirk Hoerder, History, Arizona State University
•    Jennifer Holt, Film and Media Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara
•    Grace Kyungwon Hong, Asian American Studies and Women’s Studies, UCLA
•    Eugene W. Holland, Comparative Studies, Ohio State University
•    Ashley Hunt, Photography and Media, California Institute for the Arts
•    Adrienne Hurley, East Asian Studies, McGill University
•    Natasha Hurley, English and Film Studies, University of Alberta
•    Patricia Ingham, English, Indiana University
•    Peter Jackson, English, Birmingham City University
•    Fredric Jameson, Comparative Literature and Romance Studies, Duke University
•    Micaela Janan, Classical Studies, Duke University
•    Priya Jha, English, University of Redlands
•    Adrian Johnston, Philosophy, University of New Mexico
•    Richard Kahn, Educational Foundations and Research, University of North Dakota
•    Peggy Kamuf, French and Comparative Literature, UCS
•    Ken C. Kawashima, East Asian Studies, University of Toronto
•    Sarah Kay, French and Italian, Princeton University
•    Paul Kelemen, Sociology, University of Manchester
•    Rosanne Kennedy, School of Humanities, Australian National University
•    Susan Blakeley Klein, East Asian Languages and Literatures, UC Irvine
•    Suk-Young Kim, Theater and Dance, UC Santa Barbara
•    Anna Klosowska, French, Miami University
•    A. Kiarina Kordela, German Studies, Macalester College
•    David Farrell Krell, Philosophy, DePaul University, University of Freiburg
•    Ernesto Laclau, Politics, University of Essex
•    Bradley Lafortune, English and Film Studies, University of Alberta
•    Neil Larson, Comparative Literature, UC Davis
•    Michaeal G. Levine, German and Comparative Literature, Rutgers University
•    Suzanne Jill Levine, Spanish and Portuguese, UC Santa Barbara
•    Ann-Elise Lewallen, East Asian Languages and Cultural Studies, UC Santa Barbara
•    Jacques Lezra, Comparative Literature and Spanish and Portuguese, NYU
•    Pei-te Lien, Political Science, UC Santa Barbara
•    Akira Mizuta Lippit, Critical Studies, Comparative Literature, East Asian Languages and Cultures, USC
•    Michèle Longino, French, Duke University
•    Silvia L. López, Spanish, Carleton College
•    Heather Love, English, University of Pennsylvania
•    Stephanie Luce, Labor Center, University of Massachusetts-Amherst
•    G. Akito Maehara, History, Asian American Studies, African American Studies, Chicano Studies, Native American Studies, East Los Angeles College
•    Sharon Marcus, English and Comparative Literature, Columbia
•    Lyle Massey, Art History, UC Irvine
•    Robert May, Philosophy and Linguistics, UC Davis
•    Todd May, Philosophy, Clemson University
•    Christina McMahon, Theater and Dance, UC Santa Barbara
•    Bob Meister, Political and Social Thought, UC Santa Cruz
•    Walter Mignolo, Literature, Duke University
•    Laura J. Mitchell, History, UC Irvine
•    Claudia Moatti, Classics, USC
•    Santiago Morales-Rivera, Spanish and Portuguese, UC Irvine
•    Patricia Morton, History of Art, UC Riverside
•    Fred Moten, English, Duke University
•    John Mowitt, Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature, University of Minnesota
•    Julian Myers, Visual Studies and Curatorial Practice, California College of the Arts
•    Janet Neary, English, Hunter College
•    Vasuki Nesiah, International Affairs, Brown University
•    Sianne Ngai, English, UCLA
•    Joel Nickels, English, University of Miami
•    Julia Olbert, English, UC Irvine
•    Bob Ostertag, Technocultural Studies, Music, UC Davis
•    Thomas Pepper, Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature, University of Minnesota
•    Amy Pederson, Art History, Woodbury University
•    Kavita Philip, Women’s Studies, UC Irvine
•    John Protevi, French, LSU
•    Jack Linchuan Qiu, Journalism and Communication, Chinese University of Hong Kong
•    Paula Rabinowitz, English, University of Minnesota
•    Francois Raffoul, Philosophy, LSU
•    Eve Allegra Raimon, Arts and Humanities, American and New England Studies, Women’s and Gender Studies, University of Southern Maine
•    Jacques Rancière, Philosophy, University of Paris (St. Denis)
•    Jason Reid, Philosophy, University of Southern Maine
•    Joseph Rezek, McNeil Center for Early American Studies, University of Pennsylvania
•    Gerhard Richter, German, UC Davis
•    Denise Riley, Cogut Center for the Humanities, Brown University
•    Corey Robin, Political Science, Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center
•    William I. Robinson, Sociology, University of California at Santa Barbara
•    Avital Ronell, Comparative Literature, Germanic Languages and Literatures, NYU
•    Sven-Erik Rose, French and Italian, Miami University
•    Andrew Ross, Social and Cultural Analysis, NYU
•    Kristin Ross, Comparative Literature, NYU
•    Matthew Rowlinson, English, Center for Theory and Criticism, University of Western Ontario
•    G.S. Sahota, Asian Languages and Literatures, University of Minnesota
•    Simona Sawhney, South Asian Literature and Critical Theory, University of Minnesota
•    Martha Saxton, History and Women's and Gender Studies, Amherst College
•    Annette Schlichter, Comparative Literature, UC Irvine
•    Andre Schmid, East Asian Studies, University of Toronto
•    Ronald J. Schmidt Jr., Political Science, University of Southern Maine
•    Gabriele Schwab, Comparative Literature, UC Irvine
•    Louis-George Schwartz, Film, Ohio University
•    Joan W. Scott, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University
•    Louis Segal, History, UC Davis
•    Susan Seizer, Communication and Culture, Indiana University
•    Jared Sexton, African American Studies, Film and Media Studies, UC Irvine
•    Katherine Sherwood, Art Practice and Disability Studies
•    Scott C. Shershow, English, UC Davis
•    Lewis Siegelbaum, History, Michigan State University
•    Brenda R. Silver, English, Dartmouth College
•    David Slater, Geography, Loughborough University
•    Gavin Smith, Anthropology, University of Toronto
•    Zrinka Stahuljak, Medieval and Renaissance Studies, UCLA
•    Haim Steinbach, Visual Arts, UC San Diego
•    Clay Steinman, Humanities, Media, Cultural Studies, Macalester College
•    Christine A. Stewart, English and Film Studies, University of Alberta
•    Matthew Stratton, English, UC Davis
•    Imre Szeman, English and Film Studies, University of Alberta
•    Rei Terada, Comparative Literature, UC Irvine
•    Soraya Tlatli, French, UC Berkeley
•    Sasha Torres, Information and Media Studies, University of Western Ontario
•    Alberto Toscano, Sociology, Goldsmiths University of London
•    Dimitris Vardoulakis, School of Humanities and Languages, University of Western Sydney
•    Geoff Waite, German Studies, Comparative Literature, and Art History, Cornell University
•    Elizabeth Walden, Philosophy and Cultural Studies, Bryant University
•    Rebecca Weaver-Hightower, English and Postcolonial Studies, University of North Dakota
•    Kathi Weeks, Women's Studies, Duke University
•    Silke-Maria Weineck, German and Comparative Literature, University of Michigan
•    Leonard Wilcox, American Studies, University of Canterbury
•    Julia Bryan-Wilson, Contemporary Art, Visual Studies, UC Irvine
•    Michael W. Wilson, Art, UC Riverside
•    Mirko Wischke, Philosophy, National University of Kiev
•    David Wittenberg, English & Comparative Literature, University of Iowa
•    Mayfair Yang, Religious Studies, East Asian Cultural Studies, UC Santa Barbara
•    Hu Yong, Journalism and Communication, Peking University
•    Slavoj Zizek, Philosophy, University of Ljubljana
•    Jack Zipes, German, University of Minnesota


To endorse the statement and add your name to the list, email Nathan Brown (UCD) at ntbrown@ucdavis.edu.

Police brutality

I have been meaning to comment on the way the UC administration has chosen to respond to student protest these past few days at Berkeley (as well as at UCLA and Davis), but I have found such events too deeply disturbing to do so in a timely manner. Especially at Berkeley, police over-reacted to students peacefully protesting the recent fee hike decided by the Regents. Students (and in at least one occasion, faculty) were beaten and tasered in a show of force that was totally disproportionate and unwarranted. At UCB, the university police requested support from the Oakland Police and Alameda County Sheriff Departments, a decision that could only have come from Chancellor Birgeneau and that certainly contributed to the escalation of violence. All the more disappointing as Birgeneau had been, until now, one of the more rational voices in the crisis at UC. And especially incomprehensible at a campus that, like Berkeley, has such a strong free speech tradition. The events were widely covered by the national and international press, and condemned in a growing tide of protest letters and eyewitness accounts. But few have pointed out how incredibly stupid it was, on the part of the administration, to decide to escalate the violence on campus. What on earth made these people think that this was the most effective way to respond to the students? Is this the best way to handle the financial and political crisis at UC? If there was any lingering doubt it is now painfully clear that the crisis at UC is not just financial and political, it is also, and perhaps foremost, a crisis of leadership.