Embedded Files
What Happened?
What Happened?
On May 6, Chancellor Khosla, by his executive authority, instructed campus police to remove the unauthorized protest encampment started on May 1. By May 6, the protesters greatly outnumbered the 40 campus police who were providing protection to the protesters. The campus police, per protocol, called upon mutual aid from local City and County police given the size of the task.
On May 6, the police warned the protesters to leave three times. Most protesters left; the police then removed the encampment. The remaining protesters who refused to leave were arrested, taken to the county jail, and released later in the day.
A Developing Situation
A Developing Situation
The encampment presented multiple flashpoints, any of which could lead to tragic outcomes.:
The Surroundings: The encampment area was outside the main library walkway, in the middle of Eucalyptus trees, a known fire risk. Situated next to the Student Health Center, that could amplify damage to property and people.
The Encampment was fenced with a checkpoint to control entry. The protesters did not file the agreed-upon Safety Plan, preventing Health and Safety inspectors from entering the location. Among the articles found upon the camps' removal were propane fuel and (cosplay) sword shown above.
The atmosphere in the encampment was charged with slogans and chants that included wording that would be seen as hostile and menacing for people of Jewish descent, creating a potential for conflict with counter-protesters, as had already happened at UCLA.
The following page details the escalating situation and the danger it presented on the morning of May 6th. The Chancellor's timely actions saved UCSD from a situation similar to what is now infamous in other UC campuses nationwide. President Drake published a statement below supporting the Chancellor’s action to remove the encampment.
The Aftermath: Enter the Academic Senate
The Aftermath: Enter the Academic Senate
As the detailed account of the events shows, it was a balancing act between the growing risk for injury/harm against the expression of political speech that had already violated the explicit instructions against the encampment. A call needed to be made (see meeting notes below) and made by the person entirely responsible for the safe operation of the vast campus.
The Senate leadership—including the Senate Chair and Vice Chair—was informed and consulted multiple times (See below for the records). These details were understandably not publicly available at the time and were a shared responsibility of the administration and academic Senate leadership to ensure the campus community was adequately informed.
Yet, the Senate Chair had a one-sided response, listening only to camp occupiers and NOT to Jewish students. Moreover, the Chair forbade his vice-chair from speaking to Jewish students, raising an imminent risk of a Title VI complaint.
The Chancellor's timely actions saved UCSD from a situation similar to what is now infamous in other UC campuses nationwide. President Drake published a statement supporting the Chancellor’s action to remove the encampment.
He should be lauded, not impeached!
Where Are We Now?
Where Are We Now?
The campus has returned to normal operations. While legal protests continue, the court has issued a temporary restraining order against the UAW strike. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East continues to be stressful for many members of our community.
A fraction of the faculty on the Academic Senate believes that the action to forcibly remove the encampment was not warranted or even appropriate. To register their disapproval they petitioned the AS to censure and/or express no-confidence in Chancellor Khosla. The Senate could not agree on this resolution and has referred the motions to all senate faculty including a summary proposal that Senate leadership prepared.
Verifiable Facts
Verifiable Facts
The following facts are not in dispute:
Chancellor Khosla is fully authorized to act in the interest of campus safety.
The unauthorized encampment violated university rules. The U.S. Supreme Court determined in 1984 that an encampment is not a protected form of Free Speech.
With antisemitic posters and chants, the encampment grossly violated our Principles of Community.
Clearing the encampment did not violate freedom of speech: Protests continue.
Illegal campers were warned to disperse multiple times and were advised of the penalties for violating University rules. Most left the encampment.
The Chancellor and members of the Executive Policy Group repeatedly consulted with the Faculty Senate during the encampment period.
Clearing the encampment resulted in part of the University being closed for one day.
Consultations with The Academic Senate
Consultations with The Academic Senate
Two commonly asked questions are:
Why didn't the Chancellor inform the AS Chair and the Faculty and take them into confidence?
Why didn't the Chancellor calm the protesters down instead of calling the cops on them?
The source of these questions is the Academic Senate Chair when he asserted that he had not been adequately consulted or listened to. It is certainly possible that the administration ignored the advice of the Academic Senate Chair. But it wasn't because of the lack of communications as we see below.
Regarding taking faculty into confidence, we note that the signatories behind the No Confidence motion had done a press release from the Ethnic Studies department calling for the resignation of the Chancellor on the day the encampment was removed.
Consultations Before The Removal of Encampments
Consultations Before The Removal of Encampments
The following notes show the exchanges between the protesters and the chair of the Academic Senate from May 1 to May 7. To be specific: there were 8 separate occasions when someone from the administration consulted with the Chair Hildebrand, including two communications with Chancellor Khosla in the afternoons of May 4 and May 5.
The conversations with the protesters were marked by the ambiguity as to who represented the students. There were already examples of university presidents being harrassed by the protesters or otherwise facing a no-win situation in such conversations.
Consultations After The Removal of Encampments
Consultations After The Removal of Encampments
It is understandable for the general faculty to be irate about the forcible removal of protesters; these are students in our classes or in our laboratories, and they have a right to express their political beliefs. Unless you have been closely following these developments nationally, it may not be immediately apparent why the situation was becoming dangerous, where exactly are the Eucalyptus groves and how they are connected to the encampments. The encampments were removed not because the protesters were disturbing peace or otherwise disruptive. They were removed because they presented a dangerous combination of factors that would have been uniquely more dangerous for UC San Diego. The protesters had violated earlier agreements on the conditions for setting down encampments. Once the protesters -- aided by personnel not affiliated with the university -- grew in size to a few hundred, it was already outside the capacity of university police to protect them.
After the removal, there were no scheduled meetings of the Representative Assembly -- one that is open to all senate faculty members -- until June 4th. The Chancellor called for meetings of the administrative and academic heads, including academic senate leadership, and explained multiple times the circumstances and decision-making process behind the encampment removal.
The leadership of the Academic Senate is supposed to reach out to the general faculty and communicate this information. Instead, the Academic Senate leadership chose to pick a side and inflame the division among faculty as an expression of Chair's displeasure in not taking his advice of not calling the police. More on it later, first please take a look at the communications record since May 6th (by clicking on the down-arrow on right)
The May 20th meeting of the Senate Administration Council is notable. Chancellor Khosla spent the majority of the meeting time laying out the administration's response to the encampment. While the meeting minutes are not public, here are notes by one of the attendees. Notable among the points made by the Chancellor were:
4 weeks of difficulty and serious issues
not making a decision is not an option
multiple layers of input from multiple people
risk profile: how far are we from something bad (happening)?
this commencement will see a group of UG who did not have a high school commencement 4 years ago
we can disagree, but a choice had to be made and the campus needed to keep operating.
"UC-wide tradition" educational weeks (6 or 7) for students from Palestine and from Israel host educational forums
where are we right now: 4th amendment rights versus Title 6
Margaret Leinen outlined five listening sessions.
Chancellor: academic freedom and Freedom of speech have made the country powerful and strong
Chancellor: what do we do as a collective?
Nancy Postero: decision making must have been agonizing.
There were suggestions to do townhall, listening and thinking about these in Fall.
Beyond Facts: Putting It All Together
Beyond Facts: Putting It All Together
Once we examine the available information, it is clear that the UC San Diego faculty community is conflicted because of differences in individual responses to events in the Middle East. Communities there face dire conditions, from suffering to existential threats. STEM and non-STEM faculty responses are similarly divided due to the nature of their training and outlook.
While these differences in our perceptions and reactions are natural and will take their course to heal, the ballot on the performance of Chancellor Khosla has no basis in facts. The encampment removal was not because the Chancellor favored one side of the political divide in the Middle East or because the demonstration was not peaceful. It was a judgment call balancing protest against the risk of potentially serious harm to individuals and property.
The ballot is an attempt by an activist minority that has chosen to make a statement through self-destructive means. In that attempt, it has found support from the leadership of the Academic Senate. The consequences of such an action would undoubtedly affect the entire campus, but it would do nothing to ameliorate the situation in the Middle East.
Google Sites
Report abuse