Embedded Files
UCSD Chancellor Pradeep Khosla "feared the campus could become the scene of violence of the sort that occurred at UCLA"
The Chancellor acted promptly to help our campus avoid what could have been a disastrous situation as experienced by other large universities with encampments. His efforts enabled our students to graduate and the university to continue its educational mission. We ask you to express your vote of confidence in the Chancellor, as he once again demonstrated his leadership abilities in successfully managing a complex situation like he did during the COVID-19 pandemic.
There are Five Resolutions
Senate Council Resolution:
Q1: Should Chancellor Khosla have authorized the use of an outside police force to remove the encampment? YES
Q2: Do the actions of Chancellor Khosla merit confidence in his ability to continue as the UC San Diego Chancellor? YES
Q3: Do the actions of Chancellor Khosla merit no confidence which means he should be removed as the UC San Diego Chancellor? NO
Q4: Do the actions of Chancellor Khosla merit censure? NO
Vote of Confidence in Chancellor Khosla: YES
Vote of No Confidence in Chancellor Khosla: NO
Censure Chancellor Khosla: NO
Setup a permanent committee. Drop or minimize disciplinary actions against protesters and exclude such actions in the future through a new classification of protests: NO
Why has the Academic Senate Chair led us through a process that asks the faculty to vote on a topic (short-term crisis management) that is well outside the purview of their charter?
Who has authority over campus safety?
Crisis management in dealing with a developing safety and security situation on the campus lies entirely with the Chancellor with input from a specialized crisis management team.
Role of Academic Senate
Academic Senate is primarily tasked with the content and operation of primarily academic activities by the Academic Personnel including faculty and students.
You have come to the right place if you are wondering:
Why is the UC San Diego Academic Senate holding a vote on the administration's response to removing the encampment when such a responsibility lies entirely with the administration?
What did the administration know and what were the circumstances driving its decision to remove the encampment by force?
What are the verifiable facts that underpin the current ballot in progress?
What is the subtext and politics behind this ballot?
How can you participate in this vote?
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
Pro-Palestinian protests, and to a lesser extent counter-protests, have been seen in many universities since the horrible events of Oct 7, 2023 when Hamas attacked, murdered 1,200 civilians, and took more than 240 others as hostages to Gaza. As of June 8, 2024, 120 hostages remain in captivity in the Gaza Strip where Israel has declared war resulting in thousands of civilian and terrorist deaths.
On May 1, 2024, an unauthorized pro-Palestine encampment went up against multiple warnings that it was illegal. Such encampments have been removed in multiple large universities due to the violence or potential for violence with emotions running high among the protesters and counter-protesters. At UC San Diego, the encampment was situated in a eucalyptus grove next, where it presented an additional fire hazard with no safety plan.
By May 6, the encampment had grown to several hundred protesters and counter-protesters, greatly outnumbering the 40 campus police. After three warnings, the UCSD administration acted to remove the encampment that morning. This action was completed without violence -- but with significant protests -- with the assistance of local City and County Police as per protocol. Most protesters left; 64 were arrested and released later. Details of the action are available here.
Campus resumed normal operations on May 7. The Chancellor met with campus provosts (all 8 provosts present) and briefed them on the encampment, student disciplinary procedures, and next steps.
Chancellor Khosla met with his cabinet on May 8 to review encampment actions and aftermath.
On May 9, Chancellor Khosla sent emails to the cabinet, deans, provosts, and senate council and publicly posted the "Encampment Fact Sheet" available here. Chancellor Khosla met the President of Associated Students, as well as Deans, Provosts, Senate Chair, and Senate Vice Chair to brief on May 1-6 events.
On May 15, the Executive Vice Chancellor, per the Chancellor's request, briefed all academic deans on the encampment and student disciplinary actions, and she answered questions.
On May 17, the Chancellor met the GPSA President. On May 20, the Chancellor attended the Senate-Administration Council meeting with the entire leadership of Academic Senate councils, as well as the leadership of academic units. In this meeting, the Chancellor reviewed the encampment response and answered questions. He specifically noted "multiple layers of input from multiple people" including careful risk assessment by professionals and emphasized that "not making a decision was not an option". He stated, "We can disagree, but a choice had to be made and the campus needed to keep operating." See Just The Facts Page for more details.
The Chair of the Academic Senate, John Hildebrand, called for a special meeting (a town hall) on May 10 in which he represented that he was "perfunctorily consulted" on this decision by the Chancellor. That mischaracterization of the Chancellor's consultation contributed to the polarization of the attendees.
In the regularly scheduled Senate Council (meeting of the heads of Senate committees) on May 13, Chair Hildebrand provided a draft of a ballot measure (now Ballot #1). In the subsequent week, five separate ballot proposals were filed by various groups of faculty. Through three special meetings of the Senate Council on May 21, May 23, and May 24, the Senate Council adopted a discussion agenda for the Representative Assembly in which Chair Hildebrand's ballot proposal was the main agenda item. Over three special meetings of the Representative Assembly on June 4, 5, and 6, a gathering of 250-300 Academic Senate members discussed these proposals. The Representative Assembly could not converge in favor of any of the five proposals, except for a proposal seeking peace and harmony.
This brings us to today: before you are five ballots. Ballot #1 is by Chair Hildebrand via Senate Council that claims to cover the questions asked by the other five proposals. This is in dispute by some. The other proposals seek to express confidence, no confidence or censure the Chancellor, while the last proposal seeks to create a special committee for the future while seeking amnesty for the protesters.
TEXT, CONTEXT AND SUBTEXT
TEXT, CONTEXT AND SUBTEXT
Unfortunately, this incident of encampment and its removal has become a cause célèbre among social justice warriors on campus. In the end, the Ballot is NOT about (a) how strongly protesters feel about events in Gaza; (b) whether or not protesters were being peaceful.
The ballot is making a judgment call on how the Chancellor (and the administration) could have responded to the growing encampment and the extent to which it had the potential to go out of control resulting in harm to individuals and property.
A page in progress on the protests continuing through some campuses.
How have others responded?
How have others responded?
Could we have done better? We will never know yet that is the second-guessing Academic Senate is now engaged in. Here is a closer look at the ongoing experience on campuses that parallels ours, and within few miles of us (Irvine, for instance).
Political activism has been with academia forever. Activism has sought to effect change in national policies, and social norms, and even affect international politics.
The current protests seek to effect a change. But unlike others in the past, they are hurting a part of our own community, including specific minority groups.
"We can disagree, but a choice had to be made and the campus needed to keep operating,"
-- Pradeep Khosla at the Senate Administration Council Meeting on May 20, 2024.
Google Sites
Report abuse