Irvine Faculty Association information about the events of May 15th, 2024

The information below was compiled by members of the Irvine Faculty Association who were on campus near the Free Gaza encampment between the hours of 1pm and 11pm on Wednesday, May 15th, 2024 as well as those who provided jail support throughout the night and following morning to those arrested and detained. We provide this information to describe the events as they actually happened, and thereby correct the record of events coming from Chancellor Gillman and other administrative representatives from UCI. Statements made by the administration about the events–both as they were happening and after the fact–were misleading and often demonstrably false. They both led to police violence and served as an excuse to justify it after the fact.

Timeline of events leading up to police presence

1:59pm: Nakba memorial rally in front of the Physical Sciences Lecture Hall. Students dropped banners from the second floor balcony, which is accessible by an outdoor staircase that leads to the upper sections of the lecture hall.
(Photo taken by IFA board member)

On Wednesday, May 15, 2024, UCI students called for a protest around the encampment to commemorate the 76 years of the Nakba. At around 2:15pm, the Nakba Commemoration rally assembled outside the Physical Sciences Lecture Hall (PSLH).

2:01pm: Family and community members present to commemorate the Nakba memorial.
(Photo taken by IFA board member)

Around 2:30pm, students dropped banners from the balcony, as they have done during previous rallies. The students inside the encampment opened up the barricades around the camp and arranged the shade structures and tents along the plaza side of the building, what was widely understood as a symbolic gesture. The rally, which included families and small children, continued peacefully, encircling the encampment and the entrance to the PSLH building.

By 2:50pm, the Irvine Police Department began to swarm the parking lot and helicopters (up to six) droned overhead. The first zotALERT, sent at 2:51 pm, labeled the event a “violent protest,” a dangerously inaccurate claim. Shortly thereafter, alarms in all campus classrooms went off, making many believe there was an active shooter on campus.

.

2:55pm: Irvine Police Department arrives in droves donned in riot gear.

By 3:15pm, only an hour after the rally began, dozens upon dozens of squad cars arrived, including forces from at least 22 confirmed different police departments (UCI Police Department, Irvine Police Department, the Orange County Sheriff’s Office (which was the subject of a scathing 2021 government report on violent, abusive and illegal behavior against civilians), California Highway Patrol, Costa Mesa PD, Fountain Valley PD, La Palma PD, Tustin PD, Newport Beach PD, San Clemente PD, La Habra PD, Los Alamitos PD, Buena Park PD, Laguna Beach PD, Santa Ana PD, Orange PD, Westminster PD, Placentia PD, Alhambra PD, Huntington Beach PD, Anaheim PD, California State University PD). Neither the Chancellor, the University Administration, UCIPD, nor any of the police agencies involved in clearing the encampment have publicly clarified the rationale used to call each of them to UCI when there was no threat of violence or even large disruption to campus, while officers have provided inconsistent and divergent accounts of what they were told was going on before they arrived.

3:21pm: OC Sheriff Deputy Luis Tobar (top left), who kept his hand on his holstered gun, as students and faculty pass by the parking lot to videotape and photograph the massive police response. (Photo taken by IFA board member)
According to Deputy Tobar’s personal website (bottom screenshot), he is assigned to the OC Sheriff’s Intake and Release Center in Santa Ana, CA. His website also has multiple postings of himself completing military-style training drills.

Unlike in previous days, there was no effort by police, private security, or staff from Student Services to talk to  faculty liaisons, which included IFA board members, who were present throughout the encampment’s duration to ensure open lines of communication. Instead, they ignored established procedures of de-escalation and other intermediary steps.Police and Sheriff’s forces moved into various formations in the parking lot behind the Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering Building, while police with weapons were posted on top of two surrounding buildings. Soon, however, the police presence far outnumbered the people engaged in the protest.

Around 4:50pm another message by the university administration was sent to the entire campus and shared on social media. It falsely claimed that “several hundred protestors entered the Physical Sciences Lecture Hall on the UC Irvine campus and began surrounding the building.” This was categorically untrue. In reality, a small group of protestors went very briefly inside the PSLH while the rest of the rally continued outside the building. Moreover, there were no other students in the hall at the time, no classes were taking place, and no other students were attempting to enter; the building was entirely empty by the time the police arrived.

The administration only corrected this statement hours later (around 11:00pm), admitting that protesters had not entered the building but merely arranged themselves around it; instead of “several hundred” protesters, this tweet clarified that there were merely “several.” That is, the original tweet had overestimated the number by 100 times. By then police had arrested more than 50 peaceful protestors, most of them students. Media reporting on the event also repeated the misinformation they had received from the Chancellor’s office and administration.

The inability of campus leadership to coordinate or control so many police forces led to confusion and fear in the larger campus community throughout Wednesday evening: for instance, the total communication breakdown led many University Hills residents to be prohibited from entering or leaving their own neighborhood for an extended period, even to go to urgent doctors’ appointments; similar miscommunications occurred in student housing, including in buildings half a mile away from the police action. This is further evidence of how dangerous it is for the campus to bring in this many outside agencies, including those over whom they have no direct jurisdiction, and to fail to follow established guidelines for so doing.

Local police and sheriffs wield batons while one officer points a tear gas launcher at point blank – that is, lethal – range, in direct contravention of City of Irvine “use of force” guidelines. In the background, a peaceful protester is dragged to the ground and arrested.(Photo: Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

During the police engagement and arrests, dozens and dozens of UCI students, staff, and faculty were beaten with batons, threatened with tear gas and other weapons, and thrown to the ground. A total of nearly 50 students, faculty, staff, and community members were arrested.

  • One student described seeing her friend, a female student who was not resisting arrest, being tackled by four police officers at once with a knee on her neck forcing her to the ground.
  • Numerous students reported being strip searched.
  • Muslim women faced particularly insidious forms of violence, having their hijabs removed and being forced to go with their heads uncovered despite their pleas otherwise.
  • Arrested students and faculty were held for hours, zip-tied, on a bus, and then spent many hours detained in frigid holding cells, without access to bathrooms or medical treatment during much of this period.
  • A member of the IFA’s police liaison team who helped with jail support said the following: “The number of physical injuries reported to me while we were interviewing the people arrested was out of scale. It was across all genders and in some cases too severe that people left [immediately] … to get to an emergency room. People apprehended in this action got punched and their arms twisted back to the point of injury. All the arrested folks were grabbed, searched/groped…[they were] bound and chained, subject to abusive language and stares, stripping, random unaccounted scheduling, and isolation in holding cells.”
  • All arrested students have also received notices of interim suspension and are barred from campus, including from their own campus housing. In a deliberate, unconscionable and quite likely unlawful act of cruelty, students have literally been made homeless without any due process or even confirmation they were part of the encampment or demonstration when they were arrested.

Scores of police and sheriffs officers in riot gear and batons out as they descend the staircase to Aldrich Park.            (Photo taken and posted by @SMALLANDEFFETE on X (formerly Twitter).

FAQs

Didn’t the campus have to respond to this “escalation,” especially if it involved occupying or blocking a building?

What happened prior to the arrival of hundreds of police was not in fact an “escalation.” No classes were occurring in, or scheduled for, the PSLH building at the time. Whatever “disruption” only began when the administration decided to send misinformation across campus and around the world, following that up with its ill-fated decision to call in hundreds of armed police. It was the administration itself that canceled classes on Wednesday afternoon and moved all class, research, and work online for Thursday.

Ok, so what happened on May 15th, 2024 was not an escalation. But what if campus administration thought it was? Didn’t they have to do something?

First, we should ask whether it was remotely reasonable for the administration to assume that “hundreds” of students were occupying the building, or that protestors were “swarming” the campus. No one who was present would have had even the slightest reason to believe either of these claims. There were not “hundreds” of students in the encampment at any point, and the rally around the building was only approximately one hundred people before the arrival of the police.

Moreover, faculty and staff who had for the previous two and a half weeks been working around-the-clock as liaisons between the encampment and police, security, and Student Affairs and who were present at the rally and trying to prevent police escalation,  were NEVER consulted about what was going on. There was NO effort on the part of the administration or those on-site to ascertain what was happening and gather facts before calling in 22 heavily-armed police units. There was NO effort to speak to the students around the building, to understand their plans, to determine what was happening or to warn them that their actions were about to lead to a massive escalation on the part of the administration.

It is crucial to note here that the resulting response clearly violates UC-wide policy made by UCOP in a 2021 “UC Community Safety Plan” created in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests, which specifies that “The University will…minimize police presence at protests, follow de-escalation methods in the event of violence and seek non-urgent mutual aid first from UC campuses before calling outside law enforcement agencies.”

Most broadly: it is worth considering the historical context and meaning of  “non-violent” protest. We can look to the long history of building occupations (including on college campuses) as a tactic of non-violent civil disobedience—from the Civil Rights movement, to the anti-war movement, to the Disability Rights movement, to the LGBTQIA struggle, to the fight for climate justice. None other than our own Chancellor Gillman, in his book Free Speech on Campus, co-written with Erwin Chemerinsky, has noted that both authors “grew up in the time of the civil rights movement and anti–Vietnam War protests. We saw first-hand how officials attempted to stifle or punish protestors in the name of defending community values or protecting the public peace. We also saw how free speech assisted the drive for desegregation, the push to end the war, and the efforts of historically marginalized people to challenge convention and express their identities in new ways. In our experience, speech that was sometimes considered offensive, or that made people uncomfortable, was a good and necessary thing.” Gillman and Chemerinsky correctly extend the idea of protected “speech” to acts of protest like sit-ins, boycotts, and attempts to occupy public space, and decry efforts to stifle such speech in the name of “community values.” As Irvine Mayor Farah Kahn put it on Wednesday evening: “Taking space on campus or in a building is not a threat to anyone. UCI leadership must do everything they can to avoid creating a violent scenario here. These are your students w/ zero weapons.”

What about the “outside agitators”? Are they to blame for all this?

The UCIPD made no attempt to determine whether there were “non-affiliates” present inside the building or around it before escalating and calling for mutual aid from 22 other police departments. Furthermore, UCI is a public university, and so the campus is open to the public.

We would also remind our community that the rhetoric of “outside agitators” in the U.S. dates back at least to the John Birch Society and the segregationists, and that it has always been both an anti-Black and anti-Semitic discourse. For this reason alone, we should ALWAYS approach these claims with a great deal of suspicion.

In the case of the UCI encampment, the language of “outside agitators” or “non-affiliates” is even more offensive and problematic. UCI is a public institution and an open campus. Yet Gillman has consistently defined “UCI community” to intentionally exclude the numerous Palestinian, Middle Eastern, Arab and Muslim students, faculty, staff who have attended, worked at, donated to, and supported UCI for decades. His first statement on the encampment, disseminated April 29th, ominously referred to the presence of people “not affiliated with the university.”

Those of us who spent time at the encampment know that concerned mothers, fathers, and grandparents from the community came to visit the encampment simply to share a moment of solidarity at a deeply painful time and to ensure that their students, children, and community members are safe and fed. They were welcomed and offered consistent moral support. These members of the community had seen—some of them first-hand—the two nights of brutality that had occurred at UCLA, a few weeks earlier when the encampment was violently attacked first by counterprotestors, including those from white supremacist organizations, and then by police. The local community was thus committed to making sure the same thing didn’t happen at UCI. They were there to protect the students and the encampment with their bodies. That some of them were willing to subject themselves to arrests and to harassment and violation targeted specifically at female-identified, non-white, and Muslim protestors speaks volumes to their courage and commitment, and the campus should be honored to stand beside them.

What has happened to all the students, staff, and faculty who were arrested?

Nearly 50 people were arrested and mostly charged with misdemeanors. Many sustained injuries. Many arrested students have received a 7-14 day stay-away notice. This means that they are not allowed to be on campus and that they are barred from entering their on-campus dorms and apartments. All arrested students are also currently facing university student conduct charges and have received interim suspension notices: suspended students are unable to go to class in person or access on-campus housing despite still paying rent and tuition; suspended graduate students are still mandated to teach or work remotely despite being banned from classrooms, offices, labs, and housing.

What had happened in the negotiations before May 15th?

Students representing the encampment, along with faculty mediators, entered into negotiations with Chancellor Gillman’s office over their demands soon after the encampment was established. On Monday, May 6th, negotiators notified Chancellor Gillman’s office that his initial letter to the campus community violated the good faith agreements between negotiators and the university, including the basic principle that those involved in a negotiation should not make public statements about ongoing closed-door discussions nor publicly disparage those they are negotiating with. During that meeting, negotiators also requested basic financial and university investment information, which the Chancellor’s office refused to disclose. Student and faculty negotiators notified the Chancellor’s negotiating team that they would return to negotiations after they had a chance to discuss the Chancellor’s proposals with the other students in the encampment. The negotiators verbally agreed to this and stated that they would wait for the students’ response.

The next day, the Chancellor’s office asked to meet again, and the students explained that the proposal was still being reviewed. Chancellor Gillman’s Chief of Staff responded to the faculty member advising the students in their negotiation saying that they looked forward to continuing negotiations. Thirty minutes after this message, Chancellor Gillman himself sent out a letter to the UCI campus community accusing students of being uncooperative and unwilling to meet.

The very next day, multiple UCI students received notifications of interim suspensions from the university—including three students who were part of the negotiation team. Even as students and their faculty mediators assumed they were still involved in good-faith if difficult negotiations, the Chancellor’s office was complaining–incorrectly–that students had left the negotiations and suspended them for so doing. The students were charged with “disorderly conduct,” which directly contradicted Gillman’s previous statement thanking the students for keeping the encampment peaceful and minimally disruptive. In addition to prohibiting students from being physically or virtually present on campus, the suspension stated that “this exclusion from UCI includes any and all University housing facilities.”

 

Posted in Free Speech, Future of the University, Student and Faculty responses, University Managment | Leave a comment

CUCFA Statement On Campus Protests

The Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA) denounces the growing number of attempts to intimidate, repress, and criminalize campus protests of Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza that is supported economically and politically by the United States. Many of us have watched in horror as colleagues and students at pro-Palestinian encampments have been arrested and subjected to violent treatment by vigilantes and the police over the past few days. On April 30, students sitting in at UCLA were subjected to intense vigilante violence just hours after UC President Drake declared the encampment “unlawful” and UCLA Chancellor Gene Block called it “unauthorized.” These statements played a direct role in turning a peaceful, orderly campus demonstration into the target of violence. UCLA subsequently failed to respond appropriately when student demonstrators were assaulted by dozens of armed men overnight. On May 1, the leadership of UAW 4811 (which represents 48,000 academic workers across the University of California) voted to hold a strike authorization vote if this repression continues.

In the morning hours of May 2, the violence at UCLA intensified. Police deployed stun grenades and rubber bullets, arresting more than 200 individuals from the encampment. UCLA faculty present at the encampment have stated that the demonstrators were peaceful and orderly until outside right-wing agitators, and then the police, entered the camp and caused chaos and violence. As of May 3, there are student encampments on 7 UC campuses, while student demonstrations are taking place on the remaining 3 campuses. Students, faculty, and staff systemwide are rightly worried about UC leadership’s role in escalating repression and violence against peaceful demonstrations.

The appalling arrests of student demonstrators following vigilante attacks at UCLA repeats a disturbing national trend: as anti-war demonstrations have proliferated, university leaders have made sweeping characterizations of them as dangerous, weaponizing the language of “safety” to delegitimize, intimidate, and forcibly disperse legal, peaceful dissent. UC leaders have contributed to this pattern, making students, faculty, and staff less safe as a result.

We call upon the University of California President, Michael Drake, and Chancellors of all ten University of California campuses to immediately, clearly, and forcefully recommit themselves to freedom of expression on campus. We demand you fulfill your responsibility to your campus community to defend peaceful protestors, uphold academic freedom, and reject pressure to criminalize peaceful encampments and demonstrations.

For administration: CUCFA affirms that University of California administrators are responsible for protecting the free speech rights of students, faculty, and staff. CUCFA affirms that campus protests and demonstrations fall under that set of rights. We demand:

  1. No disciplinary actions, no retaliation. Do not suspend students who participate in protest, and do not retaliate against UC graduate students, lecturers, staff, or Senate faculty who participate in protest. Drop existing disciplinary cases against student demonstrators.

  2. No arrests, no declarations of peaceful demonstrations as unauthorized. Do not mark student demonstrations as targets for vigilante or police violence. No police actions against students, graduate students, lecturers, staff, or faculty who are engaged in their first amendment right to demonstrate and protest.

  3. Recognize the condition and empathize with all students, including those with direct ties to Gaza and Palestine, and others in the Middle East, and the many Jewish students and faculty who are allied with the protestors’ demands for a ceasefire.

  4. Listen to the demands of student demonstrators, and engage them in sincere talks.

For faculty: In the event of a UAW 4811 strike authorization, we wish to reiterate our previous statements that “under HEERA [the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act], faculty do not need to volunteer to perform struck work that is outside our customary duties” and that “messages from the university telling you that it is your responsibility to ensure the continuity of education for your students… does not mean you have to volunteer to do the work of strikers that is not part of your normal work duties.” It is simply untenable for an already overworked faculty to replace the critical educational work that is done by ASEs and doing so undermines our own working conditions and the impact of their collective action. Further, “all university employees covered under HEERA, including Senate faculty, even department chairs or heads of similar academic units or programs, are generally non-managerial and also have the right to respect a picket line established by other university employees.” Should a strike be announced, CUCFA will send out further guidance regarding faculty rights and responsibilities, including on the issue of graduate student timesheets.

Posted in CUCFA Statements and Letters, Free Speech, Student and Faculty responses, University Managment | Leave a comment

Demanding that Chancellor Gillman retract his misleading statement and defend academic freedom

The Irvine Faculty Association (IFA) fully supports the statement from the UC-wide Council of Faculty Associations (CUCFA) about the urgency of defending academic freedom and the free speech rights of instructional faculty and students to express support for the Palestinian people and/or criticize the actions of the Israeli government.

We are adding this message to address specific concerns our membership at UCI have expressed about the statement UCI Chancellor Howard Gillman appended to UC President Michael Drake’s message of November 10th, 2023. Gillman was the only UC Chancellor to add his own message to Drake’s; in his message, Gillman makes the following statement:

There are very different viewpoints about the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, but it must be remembered that Regents Policy 4403: Statement of Principles Against Intolerance calls on University leaders “actively to challenge anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination when and whenever they emerge within the University community.” The report leading to the creation of this policy condemned not only to [sic] overt expressions of antisemitism but also “antisemitic forms of Anti-Zionism.” We must also stand against any speech or actions that promote Islamophobia, because as stated in the Regents Policy, real harm arises from contemporary manifestations of historical biases, stereotypes, and prejudices, which is why all members of the university community have a responsibility to “foster an equal learning environment for all, in which all members of the community are welcomed and confident of their physical safety.”

This statement is intentionally misleading and factually inaccurate. First, we should note that the Regents’ “Statement of Principles Against Intolerance” does not include any reference to Anti-Zionism. Rather, it says simply, and in terms we unquestioningly support, “Anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination have no place in the University.”

Gillman then claims that “the report leading to the creation of this policy condemned not only to overt expressions of antisemitism but also “antisemitic forms of Anti-Zionism.” Here Gillman refers to the “Final Report of the Regents Working Group on the Principles Against Intolerance,” produced in January 2016. This report details the history of the “Principles,” which began when the Regents received public comments from people concerned about an increase in incidents of anti-Semitism on UC campuses. Some of those public comments urged the Regents to adopt a definition of anti-Semitism promoted by the IHRA and U.S. State Department which includes anti-Zionism. But others, the Report notes, argued that such a definition “would sweep in speech protected by principles of academic freedom and the First Amendment.” The Board of Regents concluded that adopting a definition of anti-Semitism that conflated it with anti-Zionism was unacceptable. As the ACLU puts it, such language “risks chilling constitutionally protected speech by incorrectly equating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism” and risks leading colleges and universities “to suppress speech…critical of Israel,” concerns that have also been raised by the AAUP, National Lawyers Guild, as well as scholars of the Middle East and scholars of anti-Semitism and the holocaust.

To come up with language that would honor the principle of tolerance and non-discrimination while protecting academic freedom and free speech, the Regents formed a Working Group (including Regents, campus leaders, and faculty); this committee, in turn, held a public forum and consulted with scholars with expertise in anti-Semitism and free speech. They convened a series of meetings to draft the new statement, which received extensive public and UC-community comment. The resulting “Statement” did not make any references to anti-Zionism: far from using or citing the language Gillman quotes, the Working Group which produced the “Statement of Principles Against Intolerance” explicitly rejected it.

The IFA is deeply concerned by Gillman’s intentionally misleading misrepresentation of these documents, especially given that Working Groups like the one described here are the primary way that faculty and experts engage in shared governance and Regential policy. In a moment when Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, and anti-Zionist Jewish faculty at UCI are being targeted for harassment, it is urgent that our campus leadership be clear and uncompromising in their defense of academic freedom, including the freedom of scholars to question and criticize the actions of Israel. We demand that Chancellor Gillman immediately issue a message correcting his misrepresentations, clarifying that neither UC nor UCI has adopted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, and stating his commitment to defending the right of faculty to speak on these topics without fear of retaliation or punishment.

The IFA is a voluntary faculty association, affiliated with the AAUP, whose mission is to represent UC Irvine faculty concerns, including the urgent need to protect and defend academic freedom. As the primary mechanism through which faculty can advocate for their rights as workers, the IFA’s strength comes from its membership’s engagement and advocacy. If you are not yet a member of the IFA, please join us today! If you are interested in being part of a sub-committee of faculty to do solidarity work and advocacy around issues relating to Palestine and academic freedom, please contact us at irvinefa@gmail.com.

Solidarity,
The IFA Board
Annie McClanahan, Chair
Kevan Aguilar, Vice Chair
Aaron Bornstein, Treasurer
Tiara Naputi, Secretary

Posted in Academic Freedom, Free Speech, Future of the University | Leave a comment

Sign our letter objecting to unreasonable increases in health benefit costs

Dear IFA members and all fellow UC Irvine Faculty,

On October 26th, every UC employee received an Open Enrollment notice with new rates for healthcare benefits. The increases in the employee health benefits share are unprecedented and alarming. Costs for healthcare benefits will be going up between 15% and 193% per month, depending on one’s plan and coverage. For example, if you currently pay for Kaiser for yourself and your spouse/partner, your cost will increase by 74% on January 1. Employees who insure themselves and their whole family (spouse/partner + children) through UC Health Savings Plan will see an increase of 171%. Every health benefit plan and coverage tier is affected, and these changes will impact the over 200,000 employees who receive benefits in the UC system.

UCOP presented these changes to UC Unions and the Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA), of which the Irvine Faculty Association is a member, just three days before the start of Open Enrollment, leaving no opportunity for input. Struck by the exorbitant increases, the UC unions and CUCFA pressed for answers. UCOP representatives cited inflation, deferred preventative care during the pandemic, rising drug costs, and clinical workforce shortages as root causes for these price increases. While these are all real issues impacting healthcare costs everywhere, when pushed for details about how prices were negotiated and set for UC employees, UCOP’s answers were unsatisfactory and lacked transparency.

Importantly, the cost to employees of the various healthcare plan options is determined by the insurance company rate increase less the employer share contribution. UC did not provide information about either the rate increase or the employer contribution, so there is no way to tell if UC is paying its share of the increased cost. But other sources indicate that Kaiser’s rate increase was probably about 15% this year[1], which would mean that UC reduced its share of contributions by about 20%.

CUCFA has prepared a letter to UC President Drake protesting the magnitude of these increases in our health benefit costs and UC’s secrecy and lack of transparency in devising and announcing these policies. We encourage you to sign on to this letter, which you can do by clicking on this link:  https://bit.ly/ucHealth

If you have any questions about this message or the IFA, you can contact us at irvinefa@gmail.com.

Thank you,

The IFA Board

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Call for the inclusion of caste within UC’s anti-discrimination policy

On March 19, 2023, CUCFA endorsed the following letter, which will be sent to President Drake, UC Chancellors, and Board of Regents calling for the inclusion of caste within the University of California’s anti-discrimination policy. To join this call, sign here by April 10, 2023:

Dear President Drake, UC Chancellors, and Board of Regents,

We, University of California faculty, staff, and students, are writing to request the inclusion of caste within the University of California’s anti-discrimination policy to further solidify the UC’s commitment to diversity and equity and ensure appropriate protections for caste oppressed students, staff, faculty, and community members. With the current UC-wide anti-discrimination policy undergoing revision, it is important that the updated policy explicitly includes caste to better address the ongoing caste discrimination across the University of California.

Caste is a structure of oppression that affects over 1 billion people across the world. As one of the oldest systems of oppression in the world, the caste system is a structure of graded inequality based on notions of purity and pollution. Caste is determined at birth and affects all aspects of life, including your right to human dignity, where you can worship, where you can live, who you can marry, and your prospects for educational and career advancement. To this day, caste-oppressed peoples continue to experience profound injustices including socioeconomic inequalities, usurpation of their land, rights, and brutal violence at the hands of the dominating castes.

Caste is prevalent across various faith communities across South Asia, and also transgresses regional and national boundaries to be found globally across communities part of the diaspora. Similar forms of caste systems also exist in various non-South Asian communities, with some examples being the caste system in Japan that marks the Burakumin caste as untouchable by birth, and the casta system across Latin America.

In the US, caste impacts over 5.5 million South Asians and has infiltrated a broad range of spaces and industries from education spaces to the tech sector to religious centers. According to the 2016 survey “Caste in the United States” produced by Equality Labs, 25% of Dalits reported facing verbal or physical assault based on their caste in the US, one in three Dalit students report being discriminated against during their education in the US, two out of three Dalits surveyed reported being treated unfairly at their workplace in the US, 60% of Dalits report experiencing caste-based derogatory jokes or comments in the US, and 20% of Dalit respondents report feeling discriminated at a place of business because of their caste.

Universities in the US are no exception. Caste-oppressed students and faculty are subjected to discrimination, bullying, and humiliation. According to the preliminary findings of the 2022 Caste in Higher Education Survey administered by the National Academic Coalition for Caste Equity (NACCE) and Equality Labs, 4 in 5 caste-oppressed students, staff, and faculty reported experiencing caste-discrimination at the hands of their dominant caste peers. Further, 75% of them did not report caste-based discrimination in their universities or colleges because caste was not added as a protected category and/or their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion departments lacked caste competency due to a lack of provisions and training. Given the prevalence of caste discrimination, leading universities and colleges across the US have amended their anti-discrimination policy to add caste as a protected category, including Colby College, Brown University, Brandeis University, and, most notably, the California State University system in 2022. Recently, Seattle also amended its anti-discrimination policy and became the first city in the nation to ban caste discrimination.

The call to ban caste discrimination has also been ongoing in the University of California system, with UC Davis becoming the first UC campus to add caste to its anti-discrimination policy, and UC Berkeley’s ASUC Senate unanimously passing SR 21/22-029 urging administration to amend the anti-discrimination policy to include caste in order to create equitable learning opportunities for all students.

We call on the University of California to also recognize caste within its anti-discrimination policy and commit to protecting caste oppressed peoples against discrimination on the basis of caste. Caste-based discrimination is an urgent civil and human rights issue that requires immediate action and we request you to recognize the humanity and the reality of caste oppressed faculty, staff, and students. Given UC’s commitment to ensuring a safe and equal working and learning environment for all, adding caste as a protected category will affirm the university’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and support for those most marginalized.

To support adding caste as a protected category, please sign your name and affiliation below by April 10, 2023.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Reject Punitive Austerity at the University of California

The Council of University of California Faculty Associations (CUCFA), in collaboration with University Council-American Federation of Teachers (UC-AFT), which represents over 6,000 UC Unit 18 faculty and librarians, is collecting faculty and lecturer signatures on a letter we intend to send to President Drake and UC Regents later this month. The letter is pasted below, and if you are interested in adding your name to it, click here.

————————————————————————————————-

Dear President Drake and UC Regents,

We, the undersigned members of the UC community, stand firmly against any move on the part of the UC Office of the President (UCOP) to impose the costs of UAW-ratified contracts on the already strained finances of departments, research centers, libraries and faculty. The result would be a diminished quality of research and education for undergraduates and graduates. We urge campus administrators, UCOP, the California legislature, Governor Newsom, and federal granting agencies to recommit to fully funding public higher education.

On December 23rd, 2022, UAW members across the UC system ratified contracts with much-needed and significantly increased pay and benefits, including childcare subsidies, increased access to healthcare, family leave, and transit benefits. These overdue contracts improve the lives of UAW members—our students and postdocs—who have long endured inadequate pay and benefits. Despite numerous warnings by public education advocates, the UC system has enjoyed these lowered labor costs for decades. It is only now facing the question of how to pay for these much-needed improvements.

The University is seeking to impose these costs on departments, research centers, and faculty PIs, leading to a reduction of graduate student appointments, an increase in the already high number of undergraduates per discussion section, and a correspondingly negative impact on course curriculum, undergraduate assignments, and grading. This reduction also weakens currently funded research and allows fewer future funded research opportunities for graduate students. TA and GSR appointments are central components of funding for graduate students, and both are major inputs into the research and educational work of the institution. Given these anticipated effects, the costs of the new contracts negotiated by UCOP cannot be borne by departments, research centers, and faculty PIs. Indeed, by pushing the costs downwards in this way, the university is both effectively canceling the gains of this historic strike and negatively impacting the research and education mission of the UC.

We refuse this divide-and-conquer tactic and stand alongside our undergraduate and graduate students, department chairs, and deans in insisting on a funding model that advances the UC system’s fundamental mission of education and research. We refuse the imposition of unilateral, punitive austerity as the university’s response to a strike by academic workers against poverty wages.

We know the UC system has funds at its disposal and can work to raise additional public funds at both the state and federal levels to cover the costs of the new UAW contracts. UC leadership must not only reallocate administrative budgets but also robustly appeal to state legislators and federal grant agencies for larger budget appropriations. We expect to see a budget and planning process that allocates funds to the central missions of teaching and research and underwrites the short-term and long-term costs of the improved contract. The strike, the largest academic labor action in US history and the largest across any industry in the US last year, has highlighted the urgent need to reprioritize educational goals above financial goals.

We intend to take our concerns to the Academic Senate, the UC Regents, the California Governor and legislature, and the media. We do so to advocate for public education and to stand with our undergraduate and graduate students and junior colleagues as we all work hard to carry out that mission.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Statement on UC’s Attestation Form for Faculty

Dear colleagues:

We write to follow up on Provost Hal Stern’s email requesting that faculty fill out “attestation forms” about their strike activities. The position of University of California Council of Faculty Associations (CUCFA) and the Irvine Faculty Association (IFA) is that UCOP’s deliberate implementation of these forms in response to protected activity is unlawful and must be rescinded immediately, and that faculty are not required to submit these forms and should not do so. We are disappointed that UCOP has chosen to punitively distribute attestation forms and believe that these are an unlawful attempt to punish faculty who may have supported labor action that was undertaken in response to UC’s documented unfair labor practices, and in so doing to suppress such action in the future.

Below is a letter from the Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA) and the Santa Cruz Faculty Association (SCFA) demanding that UC cease and desist from interfering with faculty’s protected rights. You can also see a statement from CUCFA here.

The IFA encourages all Senate faculty to reach out to those in leadership roles in their departments, programs, schools, and to express their concern about UCOP’s disregard for the many ways faculty contribute to the University’s mission beyond our contractual obligations, research, and administrative and service obligations. We also suggest you join us in writing to the UCI Senate leadership (see our January 16th letter to the Senate chair, available here on our website, here) to express concern about the lack of a well-informed, well-conceived and critical response to UCOP’s attestation plan. In expecting faculty to pay back wages for work they were unable to do during the strike while not offering any meaningful explanation for how to calculate labor withheld, nor acknowledging the extra work many of us performed after the strike, UCOP and our campus administrations have demonstrated a lack of thoughtfulness, transparency, and coherence.

We hope you will join us in expressing your concern about this unlawful attempt to interfere with faculty’s protected rights.

If you are not already a member of the Irvine Faculty Association, this is a great time to join. Visit  https://ucifa.org/join/ to learn how.  We are 100% member supported. Monthly dues are a modest $9.25/month and are deducted from your monthly wages.

Sincerely,
The IFA Board

————————————————
January 17, 2023

Letitia Silas
Executive Director, Labor Relations
UC Office of the President
1111 Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94607

Delivered via Email to: Letitia.Silas@ucop.edu

Re: UC’s Interference with Faculty’s Protected Rights

Dear Labor Relations Executive Director Silas,

We write on behalf of the Council of University of California Faculty Associations, and the Santa Cruz Faculty Association, to demand that UC cease and desist from circulating or attempting to collect responses on the “Attestation Form for Faculty” it has recently distributed. UC’s attempt to survey faculty regarding whether they honored the UAW picket line interferes with faculty’s right to engage in concerted activity. It is unlawful and must stop immediately.

As UC has itself recognized, the Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA) grants non-managerial Senate faculty the same right as other employees to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection. Non-striking employees who honor a picket line by refusing to cross or by withholding their own labor in solidarity are engaged in protected activity, and it is illegal to discipline, discriminate, or retaliate against those workers. (See City and County of San Francisco (2017) PERB Decision No. 2536-M, pp. 19-22; Trustees of the California State University (2017) PERB Decision No. 2522-H, pp. 16-17.)

It is also illegal for UC to poll or interrogate workers about their intent to honor a picket line or engage in other protected activity, and to surveil employee protected activity. (See Alliance of College Ready Public Schools (2020) PERB Decision No. 2716, pp. 26-28 [public employer interfered with protected rights by polling employees about union support]; City of Commerce (2018) PERB Decision No. 2602-M, pp. 5-6 [public employer questioning of employee’s interfered with protected rights]; Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc. (2011) 357 NLRB 4, 11 [finding it unlawful under the NLRA to poll employees about intent to strike except in limited healthcare context].) UC acknowledged as much in guidance it issued before the strike, warning supervisors against surveying or questioning employees about their intent to support the strike or about their union activity.

Despite these clear prohibitions, UC has for the first time instituted the “attestation” forms that it distributed on January 13, 2023. Although there are uncountable instances in which faculty have cancelled a class or missed committee or department meetings without being made to account for their time or agree to pay deductions, UC is now attempting to interrogate faculty about how they spent their time during the strike and to force faculty to submit to a three-month deduction plan. Not only does this violate Labor Code provisions that prohibit involuntary wage deductions, this policy change has come about only because faculty engaged in protected activity. In fact, the form clearly links the withholding of labor to the UAW strike and asks faculty about whether they withheld labor only for the duration of the strike, not for any other time period. There is no question that the form targets and penalizes concerted activity only, with the intent of chilling faculty’s exercise of their protected rights.

UC has the right to withhold pay from academic workers who engage in a strike, but it cannot institute a retaliatory system of polling about strike activity or force payroll deductions in violation of the Labor Code because of faculty solidarity with other workers. UC’s deliberate implementation of these forms in response to protected activity is illegal. To remedy this interference with faculty’s protected rights, UC must immediately rescind and disavow these forms.

Sincerely,
Constance Penley, President Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA)
Wendy Matsumura, Vice President Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA)
Jessica Taft, Co-Chair of the Santa Cruz Faculty Association (SCFA)

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Post-strike grading update

As you are likely aware, in the next few days faculty will receive attestation forms to document any strike-related withholding of labor they engaged in during the recent TA and postdoctoral researcher strike. The Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA) is presently consulting with relevant counsel to determine the legality of such a demand and what options faculty have to respond or not. Until we obtain legal guidance we suggest you do not fill out or submit this form. It is our opinion that given the fact that we are not operating under any collective bargaining agreement regulating such activity, and as important, given that the university has not acknowledged or offered to compensate ladder faculty for the amount of extra work performed during the strike, such a requirement is at the very least ethically dubious.

Linked here is a letter we sent to the Chair of the UCI Academic Senate stating this fact and asking the Senate to act to protect the interests of its members and the wider UCI community rather than simply as an uncritical conduit for UCOP and campus administration demands.

We will be in touch as soon as we have formal guidance as to the proper way to respond. In the meantime, we hope you will share this information with your colleagues and ask them to consider joining the IFA so that we can represent the UCI faculty in the broadest possible way.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

IFA letter to Senate Chair Streidter in response to his post-strike pay and guidance letter of January 14

Dear Chair Striedter,

We write as members of the Board of the Irvine Faculty Association to express our strong concern at the content of your January 14th email to Senate faculty regarding strike-related pay, guidance and implementation, as well as the letter attached from Assistant Vice Chancellor, Marianne Liu Beckett, outlining the administration’s attempt to obtain attestations from employees as to anytime they missed or took off because of strike activities.

Specifically, we are concerned that your immediate response to UCOP’s  plan to ask or require faculty to self-report on strike activities was not to point out that as Senate faculty are not unionized, there is no procedure in place through collective bargaining to assess how much time we are being paid for and no basis for us to make a determination as to what percentage of our work time was taken off. Moreover, given that most Senate faculty actually did more work to cover the work not done by striking TAs and/or researchers–including after the contract was signed and grades had to be submitted–any attempt to reclaim wages is both legally and ethically dubious.

In this regard, we find it troubling that you would simply report that “deans, assistant deans and chief personnel officers will have additional information as they work with the Academic Personnel Office to implement this process.” We ask you to consider that it is the process itself which is deeply flawed and should be challenged by the Senate on behalf of the faculty, as well as on the behalf of our non-ladder faculty colleagues.

To this end, we hope that when the “guidance” comes down about how faculty and other personnel are supposed to report their activities in order to have pay deducted, you will act as advocates for faculty, whom you represent, and not administration/ management. We ask that you respond to the guidelines in a manner that defends the interests of Senate and non-Senate faculty and staff, the extra work that everyone had to do during the strike, and the need to ensure that all about rights and prerogatives are protected going forward.

We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible and before the administration attempts to impose attestation procedure, how the Senate will act on behalf of its members and the UCI community more broadly.

Sincerely,
The IFA Board
On behalf of the Irvine Faculty Association

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Faculty support requested by UAW: Contact your legislator

UAW 2865 President Rafael Jaime asked CUCFA to circulate this message of thanks to faculty for their support and solidarity. At this crucial phase of the strike and in the face of UC’s intransigence, he is asking us to call our elected representatives to get them to use their influence to intervene in the crisis UC has created. He supplied a draft script for the call that would end by asking those representatives to call our Chancellors to urge them to do everything possible to ensure a quick resolution through a fair contract.

 

Dear Faculty,

On behalf of 48,000 striking academic workers, I want to thank you for your support. The solidarity you have shown—on the picket lines, at rallies, and beyond—has been so meaningful.

As the fall term draws to a close, our strike is reaching a crucial phase. UC’s negotiators have entrenched themselves in the untenable position that it is acceptable for the country’s premier research and teaching institute to pay poverty wages. They would sooner sacrifice the education of over 200,000 undergraduates than pay a dignified wage to the workers who carry out the institution’s core mission.

In light of their intransigence, we are asking for your support again, in mobilizing our state government to intervene in the crisis UC is creating.

Please call your elected representatives and use this script to encourage them to use their influence to help win a fair contract for workers. You can find contact information for your legislators via this tool.

In solidarity, Rafael Jaime
President, UAW 2865


Script:

My name is XX and I am a Professor at the University of California [Campus]. I am calling to ask for your intervention to end the ongoing strike at UC.

Graduate workers deserve a dignified wage. Their work is essential to UC, and we cannot guarantee high quality of research and instruction without them.

[Tell a story of why you support graduate workers, or of how the strike has affected your ability to teach]

Please, call Chancellor XX [look yours up from the table below] and urge her/him to do everything in her/his power to ensure a fair agreement is reached expediently.

Chancellors’ Contact Information
Campus Chancellor Email Phone
Berkeley Carol Christ chancellor@berkeley.edu (510) 642-7464
Davis Gary May chancellor@ucdavis.edu 530-752-2065
Irvine Howard Gilman chancellor@uci.edu 949-824-9506
Los Angeles Gene Block chancellor@ucla.edu. (310) 825-2151
Merced Juan Sanchez Munoz chancellormunoz@ucmerced.edu (209) 228-4417
Riverside Kim Wilcox chancellor@ucr.edu (951) 827-5201
San Diego Pradeep Khosla chancellor@ucsd.edu (858) 534-3135
San Francisco Samuel Hawgood hawgoods@ucsf.edu 415-476-6582
Santa Barbara Henry Yang henry.yang@ucsb.edu (805) 893-2231
Santa Cruz Cynthia Larive chancellor@ucsc.edu 831-459-4291
Posted in State Politics and Economy, Student and Faculty responses | Leave a comment