Reblogging: Open Letter to UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi

I am reblogging this excellent post found at http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/. These words are powerful and need to be echoed.

Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi

Posted on November 19, 2011 by crank

18 November 2011

Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi

Linda P.B. Katehi,

I am a junior faculty member at UC Davis. I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of English, and I teach in the Program in Critical Theory and in Science & Technology Studies. I have a strong record of research, teaching, and service. I am currently a Board Member of the Davis Faculty Association. I have also taken an active role in supporting the student movement to defend public education on our campus and throughout the UC system. In a word: I am the sort of young faculty member, like many of my colleagues, this campus needs. I am an asset to the University of California at Davis.

You are not.

I write to you and to my colleagues for three reasons:

1) to express my outrage at the police brutality which occurred against students engaged in peaceful protest on the UC Davis campus today

2) to hold you accountable for this police brutality

3) to demand your immediate resignation

Today you ordered police onto our campus to clear student protesters from the quad. These were protesters who participated in a rally speaking out against tuition increases and police brutality on UC campuses on Tuesday—a rally that I organized, and which was endorsed by the Davis Faculty Association. These students attended that rally in response to a call for solidarity from students and faculty who were bludgeoned with batons,hospitalized, and arrested at UC Berkeley last week. In the highest tradition of non-violent civil disobedience, those protesters had linked arms and held their ground in defense of tents they set up beside Sproul Hall. In a gesture of solidarity with those students and faculty, and in solidarity with the national Occupy movement, students at UC Davis set up tents on the main quad. When you ordered police outfitted with riot helmets, brandishing batons and teargas guns to remove their tents today, those students sat down on the ground in a circle and linked arms to protect them.

What happened next?

Without any provocation whatsoever, other than the bodies of these students sitting where they were on the ground, with their arms linked, police pepper-sprayed students. Students remained on the ground, now writhing in pain, with their arms linked.

What happened next?

Police used batons to try to push the students apart. Those they could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate, they pepper-sprayed directly in the face, holding these students as they did so. When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood.

This is what happened. You are responsible for it.

You are responsible for it because this is what happens when UC Chancellors order police onto our campuses to disperse peaceful protesters through the use of force: students get hurt. Faculty get hurt. One of the most inspiring things (inspiring for those of us who care about students who assert their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly) about the demonstration in Berkeley on November 9 is that UC Berkeley faculty stood together with students, their arms linked together. Associate Professor of English Celeste Langan was grabbed by her hair, thrown on the ground, and arrested. Associate Professor Geoffrey O’Brien was injured by baton blows. Professor Robert Hass, former Poet Laureate of the United States, National Book Award and Pulitzer Prize winner, was also struck with a baton. These faculty stood together with students in solidarity, and they too were beaten and arrested by the police. In writing this letter, I stand together with those faculty and with the students they supported.

One week after this happened at UC Berkeley, you ordered police to clear tents from the quad at UC Davis. When students responded in the same way—linking arms and holding their ground—police also responded in the same way: with violent force. The fact is: the administration of UC campuses systematically uses police brutality to terrorize students and faculty, to crush political dissent on our campuses, and to suppress free speech and peaceful assembly. Many people know this. Many more people are learning it very quickly.

You are responsible for the police violence directed against students on the UC Davis quad on November 18, 2011. As I said, I am writing to hold you responsible and to demand your immediate resignation on these grounds.

On Wednesday November 16, you issued a letter by email to the campus community. In this letter, you discussed a hate crime which occurred at UC Davis on Sunday November 13. In this letter, you express concern about the safety of our students. You write, “it is particularly disturbing that such an act of intolerance should occur at a time when the campus community is working to create a safe and inviting space for all our students.” You write, “while these are turbulent economic times, as a campus community, we must all be committed to a safe, welcoming environment that advances our efforts to diversity and excellence at UC Davis.”

I will leave it to my colleagues and every reader of this letter to decide what poses a greater threat to “a safe and inviting space for all our students” or “a safe, welcoming environment” at UC Davis: 1) Setting up tents on the quad in solidarity with faculty and students brutalized by police at UC Berkeley? or 2) Sending in riot police to disperse students with batons, pepper-spray, and tear-gas guns, while those students sit peacefully on the ground with their arms linked? Is this what you have in mind when you refer to creating “a safe and inviting space?” Is this what you have in mind when you express commitment to “a safe, welcoming environment?”

I am writing to tell you in no uncertain terms that there must be space for protest on our campus. There must be space for political dissent on our campus. There must be space for civil disobedience on our campus. There must be space for students to assert their right to decide on the form of their protest, their dissent, and their civil disobedience—including the simple act of setting up tents in solidarity with other students who have done so. There must be space for protest and dissent, especially, when the object of protest and dissent is police brutality itself. You may not order police to forcefully disperse student protesters peacefully protesting police brutality. You may not do so. It is not an option available to you as the Chancellor of a UC campus. That is why I am calling for your immediate resignation.

Your words express concern for the safety of our students. Your actions express no concern whatsoever for the safety of our students. I deduce from this discrepancy that you are not, in fact, concerned about the safety of our students. Your actions directly threaten the safety of our students. And I want you to know that this is clear. It is clear to anyone who reads your campus emails concerning our “Principles of Community” and who also takes the time to inform themselves about your actions. You should bear in mind that when you send emails to the UC Davis community, you address a body of faculty and students who are well trained to see through rhetoric that evinces care for students while implicitly threatening them. I see through your rhetoric very clearly. You also write to a campus community that knows how to speak truth to power. That is what I am doing.

I call for your resignation because you are unfit to do your job. You are unfit to ensure the safety of students at UC Davis. In fact: you are the primary threat to the safety of students at UC Davis. As such, I call upon you to resign immediately.

Sincerely,

Nathan Brown
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Program in Critical Theory
University of California at Davis

Hope for the future

I did something new tonight. I taught my first ever college course. And I really liked it.


Through the solid partnership I now have with the ASU School of Sustainability, I was invited to teach an upper division capstone course on any subject I deemed relevant and one where I felt I could add meaningful value. Jodi, knowing how I enjoy coaching and mentoring others in their careers, brilliantly suggested I bring that passion to the classroom. The enthusiastic reception from the School and tonight from the students confirms this was very good advice.


Tonight I feel very hopeful for the future. In that classroom I got to hear from 18 or so students who came across as smart yet humble, highly motivated to make a difference in the world but also closer to home. Not idealists, a refreshingly pragmatic group ready to roll up their sleeves and do something. Even if it's hard. Even if it doesn't pay a whole lot. What they want in return? Happiness for themselves and the opportunity to bring happiness and justice to others in the process.


This is the next generation. It is ready. It is aware. It is bright. It is not overly cynical - although clearly disappointed in their elders, who can blame them? I am grateful to have the chance to guide them and hopefully help them achieve even greater things. Go Devils!

Freedom

I recently played in a friendly tennis mixer organized for the 4th of July weekend. Holiday themed attire was encouraged. One of the women there wore a shirt saying 'Got Freedom?', inspired by the now classic 'Got Milk?' ad campaign. A car in the parking lot had a bumper sticker showing the emblem of the US Marines and the words 'My son fights for our freedom'. Various July 4th inspired headlines and commercials say things along the lines of 'Celebrate Freedom'. Got me thinking about freedom...

The US was founded on some very noble ideals. We are all created equal. We all have inalienable rights. We are all free to pursue happiness. Of course, when these things were declared, they were aspirational goals, not realities. Women had much fewer rights than men. Most black people in the US were enslaved. Native Americans were considered 'hostile savages' just because they were defending their ancestral lands from invasion. And so on. There was a lot of work to do, and it was very bold and progressive of the Founding Fathers to lay out that kind of vision. Nothing like that really existed anywhere else on such a scale, which is why this country became such a beacon for the rest of the world.

Fast forward to present day. I find there is a dramatic gap between the ideals upon which this country was founded - those that make us most proud to be American - and the reality that results from the policies and actions of the US. Worse, we are increasingly comfortable explaining our many departures from these ideals whenever they are not convenient.

There are unfortunately so many examples to draw from lately. Here are a few:

- Torture is wrong and illegal, except when deemed necessary, then it's OK

- Everyone is entitled to due process, except if we don't have a case against them, then it's OK to hold them indefinitely without being charged with a crime or given access to an attorney 

- Corruption is illegal, but it's perfectly OK to give millions to people in power and expect favors in return

- Free speech is protected, unless you publish embarrassing truths about the government, then you're deemed an enemy of the State

- Freedom of assembly is protected, unless you plan to assemble in order to use free speech to voice your disagreement with your government, then may be preventively detained or violently disbanded

- Interfering in other countries' elections and affairs is illegal and wrong, unless we think that country will elect someone who will put their own country's interests ahead of US interests, then we may interfere

- No one's above the law. Unless they have powerful friends and tons of money

- Human rights abuses are always wrong. Especially if committed by countries whose natural resources we covet, then we use that as a pretense for war. Unless they are committed by close allies like Israel or Saudi Arabia, then we look the other way

This is certainly not limited to government policy. This is evident everywhere, nowhere more so than in religion. Massive gaps exist between what religion teaches and what is done in the name of religion. I can sort of blame the abuses of the Spanish inquisition or the Crusades on complete ignorance and lack of information. But in today's day and age, I cannot stand those who advocate violence, intolerance or persecution in the name of religions that preach peace and tolerance. Be they Mullahs, Ayatollahs, priests, popes, ministers, or simply 'deeply religious' politicians.

Closer to my line of work, look at the hypocrisy with regards to climate change. All serious science proves it beyond doubt. All major political parties in the world except one recognize its existence and need to address it. Can you guess the one outlier? If you guessed the US Republican Party, you're right. In the list of Key Issues on their website, climate change is nowhere. Even if it's the most pressing and complex problem humanity faces...

Most large organizations are quite forthcoming about the need to address climate change. But some of them are talking out of both sides of their mouths: Exxon Mobil says clearly on their website: ''Rising greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems'. Yet they are also spending millions to fabricate scientific doubt about climate change, and millions more lobbying against any attempt to regulate or lower emissions. The US Chamber of Commerce says on their website ‘The U.S. Chamber of Commerce believes climate change is an important issue for policymakers to address.’ Yet, they are spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying against any legislative effort to address the problem and are financially supporting the biggest climate deniers in Congress. 

The main common thread among all these things, in my opinion, is money. Lots of it. We spend trillions of dollars to fund a military empire primarily designed to protect and further American interests in the world. Those interests generate many more trillions. The people and groups on the receiving end of most of that money are very rich, very powerful, and very determined to make sure the flow of money doesn't stop.

Another way to say that is that sending our sons and daughters to all corners of the globe has little if anything to do with 'protecting our freedom' as most people understand it. It is mostly about protecting our freedom to access natural resources as we please, to maintain privileged access for our products and services, and to export our ideology to the rest of the world. Nobody's really out to take our freedom away. Those who fight us are usually aiming to protect or regain their own...

On this 4th of July, let's celebrate the vision the Founding Fathers had for our nation and our world, and let's commit to reforming our institutions so that this vision can one day become reality.

Letter to Obama

I've been getting an increasing number of calls and emails soliciting money for the Obama reelection campaign. I've been declining and trying to tell them why, but have been getting the clear feeling they don't give a damn. Their only answer is: Barack is better than whoever will run against him. As if that was enough. So after receiving yet another email pleading for my support today, I sent the following response, which I'm sure will fall on deaf ears:

Mr. President,

When I was called asking to donate again (I gave multiple times to the first campaign), I told the phone agent that I needed you, the President, to give people like me a sign that you care about what we have to say. Instead of being so reactive to what Republicans are saying and doing, why don’t you start listening to the people whose support you’ve lost by ignoring us.

We care that you completely backtracked on your promise to close Guantanamo. We care that you have not used the power of your office to strongly endorse the science behind climate change and expose those who question it for self-serving motives. We care that you have become as much a warmonger as your predecessor was, making a mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize you received. We care that you’ve allowed Wikileaks to be vilified and its supporters harassed instead of using it as a wake-up call to restore integrity in US foreign affairs. We care that you’ve allowed Wall Street profiteers to walk away from the massive fraud they committed against the American people, even appointing some of them to your administration. We care that you’ve not committed to formally appointing Elizabeth Warren to protect the American consumer against financial highway robbery. And we definitely care that you so eagerly walked away from the Public Option, didn’t even give Single Payer a chance, and made backroom deals with Big Pharma.

Mr. President, you promised change in your first campaign. I understand you can’t do everything on your own and that the influence of money on Congress and the Supreme Court have made your job harder. Still, there is plenty you can do that you have not. I’d much rather have you be a one-term president with principles rather than yet another two-term Washington insider intent on preserving the status quo that is corroding this nation in so many ways.

Respectfully,

Bruno Sarda

Freedom, equality & relationships

It's been ages since I've written anything in this blog. Not that I haven't had anything to say. Maybe it's the lack of time. Or maybe it's the fact that I am better able to carry out these conversations in the course of my daily personal and professional lives.

Today, the spark to write came from the decision by the state of New York to grant all its citizens equal rights to marry the person they love. The decision in itself is not what made me want to write, but rather the fact that this was so hard to achieve and that so many people on one particular side of the political spectrum are so intent on imposing their ideology and beliefs on everyone else, while claiming to be the champions of freedom and individual liberties. What a crock.

Just like Ford said you could choose any car color as long as it was black, the right wing in the US says you're free to do and say what you want as long as you agree with them.

Someone once told me that the best relationship is one where the other person creates the space for you to be exactly who you are. As far as political relationships go, the GOP is pretty much the opposite of that. There is no room for a range of opinions there. GW Bush said 'if you're not with us you're against us'. That could become the GOP's mission statement. Agree with all credible scientists around the world about climate change? Believe in a woman's right to choose when to bring a child into this world? Believe that profit-driven ideology is not the best way to run things like prisons, or healthcare, or armies? Believe in the right of government to regulate business so as to protect society from destructive greed? You're against them.

I know the idea of updating the US Constitution to better reflect the needs and realities of today's society is a very controversial subject. Yet, how powerful this could be. Imagine a new Constitutional Convention, leveraging the power of connected technology to involve anyone in the country who's interested. Look at the result in Iceland where they are using the Web to crowd source their new constitution. Imagine instituting a true national debate about fundamental issues like immigration, guns, campaign finance, state's rights, rules for throwing country into foreign wars, solidarity and the role of government in providing a social foundation where everyone truly is equal in their ability to prosper and pursue happiness. This is not about pushing an agenda.This is about acknowledging that today's political agenda is being driven by a very small number of extremely powerful and rich people. Exactly the situation that the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution and the US Constitution sought to eliminate.

John Lennon's song 'Imagine' is more relevant today than ever. We have the capability and capacity to imagine and build a better world. And I believe we have the collective will. I also believe those in power mostly do not, in large part because they benefit from the status quo. Just like the French aristocrats did before the Revolution. Just like the British did in the Colonies, be it the Americas or India.

Let's all wish for a world where it is not big news when anyone in New York is able to marry the person they love. A world where equality, solidarity, opportunity, fairness and decency are not privileges to be earned or fought for, but rather fundamental rights protected by law. A world where greed and intolerance and violence are once again bad things period, not just a matter of opinion.The path to such a world is to choose relationships - political, personal, commercial - in our lives that allow for these values and dreams to grow, not die.

Thoughts on election

In many ways, Democrats deserved the huge slap in the face they received in this week's election. The really unfortunate part is that it had to come as a result of promoting right-wing fanatics who are hell bent on pushing their pro-business-at-all-cost and anti-humanity agenda with no regard to plunging the US deeper into the toilet than the Bush-Cheney years already achieved.

Dems and Obama both deserved this. Dems in Congress completely squandered the mandate they were given in 2008, and then proved once again they suck at running coordinated campaigns. They have been so focused on glowing in their glory, they really were not interested in reforming how business is done in Washington.

Obama deserved this because he completely forgot why and how he got his job as soon as he got inaugurated. He was quick to adopt the ways of DC, push half-solutions in backroom deals just to be able to say he got something done. He needed to stand his ground, even if that meant not getting any of his key reforms passed for the first 2 years. He needed to name and shame anyone blocking true reform, as opposed to losing the moral high ground once he started becoming one of them. Healthcare was trickier, he really should have started with Wall Street. A huge majority of voters would have stood behind him if he had tried to push true reform in this space. First error of course was to bring half of the Goldman Sachs exec suite to Washington with him!

As for the right-wing nuts who have completely monopolized the GOP agenda, I don't know what bothers me more: That many of them are utterly incompetent and downright intellectually challenged. That they lie, cheat and intimidate as the only way to beat their opponents, since they don't know what reasoned debate is and their ideas have no chance of prevailing on their own merits. That they claim to be patriots while completely selling out their country and constituents to benefit the few, rich and powerful who bankroll their campaigns. And so on. I guess it all bothers me. A lot.

I would pity them all if they weren't so dangerous. We saw during the Bush years what happens when these people have control. Jobs are lost. Lives are lost. Nature is raped senselessly. And the very rich get WAY richer.

John 'I fell asleep in the tanning booth' Boehner is pathetic. He said this week that President Obama needs to change to bow to the will of the people. Yeah, just like Boehner and his buddies did in 2008, right?

But let's go with it for a minute. Just like Boehner doesn't seem to believe that the overwhelming Democratic vote in 2008 was a mandate for Obama to push his agenda, let's also question whether the overwhelming Republican vote this week is a mandate for them to push their agenda.

Instead, let's do this. I challenge Boehner to commit to bowing to the will of the people. Let's setup a very broad national referendum - possibly as broad as the census - on the key questions that keep dividing this nation: Healthcare; gun control; abortion; tax reform; campaign finance reform; true democracy vs. the antiquated electoral college; etc...

We would make sure to do 2 things: 1) We would ensure a very thorough security system to make sure the results were not 'modifiable'. Biometric authentication with hard copy record of each vote to start. 2) Each party would agree to support legislation and/or constitutional amendments to enact the will of the people.

Ready? Watch Boehner and his buddies laugh off the idea. They know they only work for a small - albeit powerful - minority of voters in this country. They have absolutely no interest in enacting the will of the people.

If I was Obama, I'd go on the offensive for the next 2 years. Demand congressional investigations into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and all other neo-cons who led this country to war on the basis of lies and fabrication, causing untold death and suffering. Demand campaign finance reform and expose in the process the huge sums of shady money that paid for the Republicans to get elected this week. Put them on the defensive. Scare their corporate backers into realizing they will be brought into the spotlight and their influence exposed.

And don't stop there. Shake up your cabinet. Fire Geithner for God's sake! Fire Gates and put a peace maker in that job. Demand nothing less than full accountability from everyone in your administration. Make examples out of those who don't get the message. Clean up your own house. You will regain the trust of the people if you follow through on what you promised your voters in 2008!

Letter to Senator John Cornyn

I wrote Senator Cornyn some time ago to urge him to support the EPA's right to regulate C02 pollution under the Clean Air Act. GOP senators were mobilizing to prevent this from happening due to pressure from industry lobbies who want to keep polluting freely.

Below is the response I received, to which I replied. You can find my response below his:


On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:31 AM, wrote:

Dear Mr. Sarda:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding.  I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this matter.

In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Massachusetts v. EPA that carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases may be regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA).  In response to this decision, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a finding on December 7, 2009, that the present concentrations of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, constitute an endangerment to public health and welfare.  A second EPA finding concluded that emissions from new motor vehicles and their engines also endanger public health, and therefore are also subject to regulation under the CAA.  I am pleased that our nation’s air quality has steadily improved since implementation of the CAA; however, I remain concerned that the treatment of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, as pollutants under the CAA is a disservice to the American people and misrepresents the legislative intent of the Act.

I support efforts to improve our nation's air quality based on sound scientific and economic principles.  However, the EPA's determination on this matter disregards numerous proposals before Congress that seek to address our nation's environmental challenges, in favor of expanding EPA's regulatory authority under the CAA.  Any decisions regarding how to control greenhouse gas emissions should take into consideration the impact these costly regulations will have on stakeholders, including states, industries, and citizens.  Furthermore, it is essential that this process is transparent and accountable to all Americans, and I strongly believe that Congress is the most appropriate forum to review the scope and magnitude of the impact that the EPA's endangerment finding would have on our economy. 

As such, I joined several of my Senate colleagues in co-sponsoring Senate Joint Resolution 26 (S.J. Res. 26), a resolution which would have prevented the EPA from moving forward with their endangerment finding or proposing any substantially similar regulations.  Unfortunately, the Senate failed to enact S.J. Res. 26 when it was considered on June 10, 2010, and I remain concerned about the consequences of empowering unelected bureaucrats to impose a new national energy tax on American families.  As a member of the United States Senate, I look forward to a full and open policy debate regarding environmental issues, and you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind as the Senate continues its work on this matter.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate.  Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov


This is what I sent today in response to the reply from his office:

Dear Senator Cornyn,

thank you for your response. However I must point to a part of your response that exemplifies the problem we're facing:

'I support efforts to improve our nation's air quality based on sound scientific and economic principles.'

The reason that EVERY LIVING SYSTEM on this planet is in decline - every single one - is because economic principles have been used as a primary guide to drive decisions. Killing the ecosystem and its inhabitants is not sound business. As long as short-sighted, profit-minded special interests control the agenda, the health of our country and its citizens will continue to suffer.

If a foreigner tries to endanger American lives, we call it terrorism. If an American business does the exact same thing, we call it free enterprise and 'sound economic principles'.

The leaders of our nation, yourself included, have a moral and civic obligation to protect our land from any harm that can come to it. Sometimes the right choice is not the cheapest choice, but it's still the right choice. Letting the EPA regulate industries that pollute our air is not only within their mandate, it is an absolute necessity!

Do the right thing for all your constituents, Senator, not just the small group of industry barons who have bottomless pockets to finance political campaigns.

Sincerely,


Bruno Sarda