Countering Propaganda

Rhetoric: The Chancellor could have chosen an option that did not involve calling outside police forces onto our campus, like a negotiated end of Berkeley or Riverside. 

Fact: A vast majority of experience with pro-Palestinian protests in UCs and around the country has resulted in the removal of the encampments by the police. It was a matter of time -- when and not if -- the camps would have been removed. 

Each campus is different: Berkeley and Riverside differ from UCSD at multiple levels. Even so, violence returned in Berkeley, as well as in Los Angeles. Being responsible for a large campus with many mission-critical functions, including running hospitals, the chancellor chose to err on caution rather than the optics of police action. The chancellor was explicitly advised by the professional crisis management team to wait no longer before the situation spiraled out of control, and even the county police would not be able to handle the situation. As the chancellor said at the SAC meeting on May 20, 2024, we may disagree, but not acting was not an option. 

Rhetoric: Why terrorize the protesters with police in riot gear?

Fact: The Chancellor has long-standing instructions for UCPD to be present in plain clothes at internal events. Crowd control protocols require 3:1 ratio of police to protesters. Once the size of protests exceeded the UCPD's capacity to handle them, the protocol required the presence of cooperating agencies from the city and County who are not subject to UCPD protocols.

An appropriately sized police force is required to effectively handle the situation peacefully by keeping it under control. Without external support agencies, the potential for violence by an overwhelmed UCPD actually increases. An even bigger issue was that a much larger crowd would have overwhelmed the supporting agencies, throwing the situation out of control.

Misinformation: He could have accepted the AS Chair's offer to broker talks with student protesters. 

Fact: The AS Chair has misrepresented his interactions with the administration, as the records show.

Rhetoric: He could have negotiated as was the case in divestment or Compton Cookout protests. 

Fact: The pro-Palestinian movement has external origins as well as participants among organizers who are not affiliated with the university. This was one of the main challenges in trying to negotiate with the protesters in the days leading up to the expansion of the encampment.

Misinformation: He could have followed UC Office of the President Guidelines.

Fact: Not only did he follow the guidelines, but he also earned prompt letters of commendation from both the President and the Regents.

Misinformation: No.

Fact: The "No Confidence" motion proposal explicitly asks for the chancellor's removal. Chancellor is the chief executive responsible for a 2000-acre campus with 40K employees and 50K students. Many executive actions, especially in developing situations, require making a judgment call and are evaluated based on the outcomes, not the optics. There are many ways to register displeasure, even disapproval, of these choices. No confidence is not one of them.

Rhetoric: Students are expressing their conscience about world events and exercising their rights in a university that is "the home and sponsor of critics," as outlined in the Kalven Committee report in 1967.

Fact: These expressions are welcome, even if loud, not peaceful, and disruptive. The chief executive remains responsible for the safety and welfare of the entire community, and that responsibility takes precedence, certainly over illegal activities with outside participants.

Rhetoric: It is a form of protest that draws attention. It violates the "campus code of conduct," but that is what civil disobedience is about.

Fact: A "conduct violation" by camps was allowed by the Chancellor and could have continued with the agreed-upon need for a safety plan. Instead, the encampment was growing in an area surrounded by combustible trees and the presence of counter-protesters that increased the potential for harm to individuals and property. Unauthorized and unsafe overnight stay under these conditions was unnecessary; the protesters did not have to make an encampment.

Misinformation: The encampments were protected by the First Amendment. 

Fact: The encampment was illegal. The court rulings have been clear: camping is neither free speech nor legal. Here is a Supreme Court Case about protesters sleeping across the Whitehouse that upheld the restrictions imposed by the National Park Service against such camping as a matter for the First Amendment.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/clark-v-community-for-creative-non-violence/

Misleading: The encampment was peaceful.

Reality: This is irrelevant, as explained clearly to the Academic Senate chair and to the protesters. The camps were removed not because they were not peaceful but because they presented a growing risk.

Misleading: The protesters were all students.

Fact: While the estimates vary -- most outside agitators heeded the police warnings and left, leaving behind passionate students -- presence of any outsiders, much less their training and conducting protests is a cause for concern. 

Misleading: No, because they mean something other than the annihilation of the Jewish people.

Fact: It is irrelevant to the "No Confidence" motion. Anti-semitism, like racism or bias, is felt by the victim, not necessarily by the perpetrators. The Jewish students have repeatedly told us that these and other chants are antisemitic. Please read the detailed letter by the Jewish students on this page. Why would we not listen to the victims?

Misinformation: The encampment was not anti-semitic. There were no anti-Jewish epithets. Two Jewish faculty wrote to the local newspaper that they didn't think it was.

Fact: See the pictures and letters by the community members, that contradicts opinion of two Jewish protesters. More to the point, the encampment presented a safety risk regardless of whether or not it was anti-semitic.