no-confidence post-mortem, take 1 February 20, 2012Posted by Julie Sze in no-confidence vote.
add a comment
preliminary thoughts on the recent Academic Senate votes February 18, 2012Posted by Julie Sze in no-confidence vote, students, university.
add a comment
for those of you who need the vote count, the faculty voted in favor of the 5 part vote of confidence in the Chancellor and against the no-confidence motions.
much will be written (I hope) about what this all means.
in the meanwhile, it’s worth reading or re-reading Daniel Cox’s blog about the problem of the vote of confidence, specifically from the perspective of students (or rather, the complete absence of students from the pro-chancellor motion).
Great Public Universities: How shall faculty vote on motions concerning Chancellor Katehi? February 14, 2012Posted by ucfacultyfortransparency in access to education, no-confidence vote, protests, students, university.
1 comment so far
This post is from Daniel Cox, Professor of Physics:
What is a great university? Is a great public university different than a great private university? Is a university great because of the reputation of its scholars and the quality of its students as measured by test scores and grade points? Is a university great because of its endowment? Or is a university great because it provides great opportunities for mobility to all who rise to the challenge of succeeding in our classrooms and laboratories?
As we look at the final outcome of our crisis in November, and the imminently reasonable concerns put forward by the student protesters of November, we should also focus our attention on these questions. In my opinion, a faculty member’s vision of what makes a university great must provide the ultimate philosophical and emotional backing to their vote on the measures now before the Academic senate to either support Chancellor Katehi or not.
First and foremost, I want to state unequivocally: a great public university must have affordable tuition for its students that does not tie them to crushing debt, and any great university must recognize its central obligation to the welfare of its students. (more…)
Thinking about the Senate motions February 11, 2012Posted by davidmwittman in no-confidence vote.
Tags: Academic Senate, Linda Katehi
add a comment
There are three Academic Senate motions to vote on, and they are not all independent of each other. Two are independent: Motion Concerning Police Actions and Motion Concerning the Chancellor’s Judgment. The third, Five-Resolution Vote of Confidence, combines multiple issues which are logically independent of each other. It’s nearly 90 days since Nov. 18, and we still haven’t even seen any report, much less seen any concrete action for improving the flawed process which led to those events, or (even more important in my view) improving the disastrously flawed communication processes evident in the weeks following. I suspect many of you feel that you can’t quite support the no-confidence statement (Motion Concerning the Chancellor’s Judgment), but you also can’t yet express yes-confidence as the Five-Resolution Vote of Confidence does. If so, you can still condemn the police actions by voting yes on the Motion Concerning Police Actions. In my opinion, the Five-Resolution motion was written to inflate the yes-confidence vote by combining it with a lot of other things with which few can disagree. The other two motions keep them separate.
Another thing to keep in mind is that this is not Parliament, in which the Prime Minister is ousted by a no-confidence vote. There will NOT be turmoil if the no-confidence motion passes. Katehi is not going anywhere; she has stated that the university needs her. The effect of passing the no-confidence vote is to send a strong message that flawed processes in the chancellor’s office need to be fixed. And this is our only chance to do that.
P.S. Need evidence of flawed processes? Read about the fact sheet and about how they deal with students who wish to meet the Chancellor. Not to mention the flawed process of dealing with campus protests, which ignited all this.
How I got involved January 24, 2012Posted by davidmwittman in no-confidence vote.
Tags: Linda Katehi
It was the “fact sheet” that radicalized me.
I have never been politically active in my life. Although I have
opinions on political issues, I have always found immersing myself in
my own work far more rewarding than joining the political fray. Of
course, when I saw the videos of campus police pepper-spraying
students on the quad on November 18 I was disturbed, but I would have
been content to sign a few petitions and vote in any faculty votes on
I did sign the letter, written by other physics faculty, calling on
the chancellor to step down. This was not a knee-jerk reaction to the
video; I understood that it would take time to properly assess
culpability for the events of that day. Rather, I called for her
resignation because her leadership in the aftermath of the
pepper-spraying was so awful, and because it was clear that she needed
to be sent a very strong message to take a more pro-student stance.
However, at that point I still wasn’t energized enough to actually do
anything. In the week to ten days following the signing of that
letter by a majority of the physics faculty, Chancellor Katehi
embarked on a charm offensive, proclaiming that she takes
responsibility, etc, and though I viewed that as likely to be
insincere damage control, I was starting to be worn down.
Then came the “fact sheet.”