UCSC Faculty Press Conference regarding Kerr Hall Occupation Charges

Over 100 UCSC Faculty Sign Letter Objecting to Campus Judiciary Process.

Press Conference is Friday April 23, 2010 at 2 PM at Kresge Town Hall at UCSC

April 21, 2010
University of California, Santa Cruz

Over 100 UCSC Faculty Sign Letter Objecting to Campus Judiciary Process

Santa Cruz, CA—April 21, 2010—Faculty protest is mounting about student penalties levied by the Judicial Affairs Office at UCSC. Over 100 UCSC faculty and lecturers signed a letter to Chancellor George Blumenthal objecting to the “voluntary resolution agreements” issued to students in connection with the occupation of UCSC’s Administration Building, Kerr Hall, in November of last year. Faculty will hold a press conference on Friday, April 23, at 2 pm outside Kresge Town Hall, before the UCSC Academic Senate meeting at 2:30 where they expect to press the Chancellor and Executive Vice Chancellor with tough questions on the issue.

From November 19-22, 2009, UCSC students, faculty, and other employees and affiliates occupied the administration building to protest the UC Regents’ decision to raise student tuition 32% while also cutting local programs and services in response to the state and UC budget crisis. When negotiations between the administration and the protesters failed, police cleared the areas in and around the building, resulting in the injuring of one faculty member who had arrived to witness. The dispersal order informed students that if they left peacefully, no charges would follow.

After conducting interviews with 46 students identified as connected with the Kerr Hall occupation, Director of Student Judicial Affairs Doug Zuidema issued 36 “voluntary resolution agreements,” finding students equally responsible for 10 violations of the student code of conduct and levying fines of $944 each to cover the University’s $34,000 estimated costs of repairs and clean-up. Faculty point out that although the agreement is “voluntary,” students failing to pay the fine may be barred from enrolling in classes or graduating.

Faculty object that students were not provided with evidence confirming their responsibility for damages and were instead each fined the same amount—to cover the total for damages and clean-up—regardless of their role in the events. Students were also not offered evidence of their responsibility for the damages, even though several requested such evidence at the initial interview. Students who requested a hearing were also initially denied one because their student status wasn’t threatened. The Student Policies and Regulations Handbook stipulates that “Requests for formal hearings will be granted in those cases where (1) the sanction issued by the responsible official includes either suspension or dismissal from the university or (2) the facts presented in the case are in dispute.” Students have subsequently requested hearings on the grounds of factual inaccuracies in the VRAs.

The faculty letter notes as another major concern that “the disciplinary procedure has proceeded without consideration of students’ rights of free speech and assembly.” Although the actions were collectively executed by a group of considerable size and diversity in public expression of grievance against the University, “the resolution does not separate accusations of criminal behavior from protected speech acts; it implies that any form of participation in these actions is tantamount to vandalism.” This, faculty argue, “will have a chilling effect on necessary speech and debate in the campus community” by threatening criminalization “in cases where the University has a substantial stake in minimizing the effects of a coordinated protest action” (Letter of 4/14/10).

Faculty received a response to their letter from the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Felicia McGinty, although they had written to the Chancellor. In her response, VCSA McGinty provided a general overview of the judiciary process but did not address the specifics of this case, including the inability of the University to provide evidence to students.

The University lists the cost of repairs and clean-up as approximately $34,000 (half of which is for contracted janitorial services). Students volunteered to assist in clean-up but their offer was declined.

As part of a turn toward more draconian approaches to dissent, in February of this year police were found to be photographing faculty, staff, and student participants in a peaceful demonstration outside Kerr Hall to show support for foreign language instruction, which is also seeing cuts. In a letter to the Chancellor, faculty protested the police surveillance, citing a faculty senate PATRIOT ACT resolution passed in 2004 enjoining the Chancellor to instruct police to refrain from surveillance activities without a court order. Assistant Chancellor Sahni responded to the letter, countering that “during these difficult times . . . the police must be able to use their judgment and reasonable tools to document for evidentiary purposes conduct that is potentially unlawful. . . .” Faculty have prepared a response and requested a meeting with the Chancellor to discuss these surveillance activities.

At the Senate meeting on April 23, faculty will ask the Chancellor and Provost to account for recent surveillance activities and judiciary proceedings in the question and answer period following the Chancellor’s and Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost’s addresses to the faculty.

The faculty letter protesting the UCSC Judiciary procedures can be found at:
http://checkingeducation.com