APPROVED
Demonstrations and Student Actions
2013-14 Annual report
The Committee on Demonstrations and Student Actions (DSA) completed its second
year as a committee of the Academic Senate with the accomplishment of several
critical initiatives. Based on our experiences during the 2012-2013 AY, we started
this year with three initiatives. Below I review those initiatives and detail our
strategies toward accomplishing our goals.
DSA Initiatives 2013-2014AY
(1) Observer Program
(2) Consulting with Administrators & UCPD: Protest Response Team & Police
Review Board
(3) Mutual Aid
(1) Observer Program
Background: One of the major focuses during 2012-2013 was the consideration of
initiating a faculty-based Observer Program to provide the Academic Senate with
valuable information about police and administrative action during student
demonstrations and protest. There was a lot of very important dialog and discourse
pertaining to the composition and role of the Faculty Observers were such a
program established. DSA committee member (now co-chair) Dr. Anant Sahai
formed a subcommittee to developing an outline detailing the scope of such a
program, were it to be established.
Targeted aims:
(1)Determine the extent of the existing observer program
(2)Follow up on town hall meeting to continue dialog with Student Leaders as to ways in which
faculty can contribute to establishing and maintaining a campus environment that ensures
freedom of speech and expression and supports student activism.
2013-2014 accomplishments:
The committee invited Observer Program Coordinator and Interim Dean of Students
(now Associate Dean of Students) David Surratt to discuss the activity of the
Campus Observer Program. We obtained documents from observers concerning
recent events and verified that the program is still active but could use additional
support. A member of the DSA committee could be trained and serve as an Observer
in order to keep apprised of the activities of this program and support the program’s
goals of providing detailed observation and feedback concerning administrative
response to demonstrations and student activist activities on campus, in particular
focusing on the initiatives outlined in the Crowd Control and Civil Disobedience
policies.
(2) Consulting with Administrators & UCPD
Background: Last year, we examined a series of campus reports issued by the
Police Review Board and an ad-hoc committee for the Office of the President in
APPROVED
2008-2011. Those reports offered dozens of detailed recommendations for
improved administration and police department response to campus protest
activities, but it was not clear in our conversations with officials whether the
majority of these recommendations had been implemented or whether there were
even plans in place to initiate their implementation. We prioritized items that the
committee felt were essential to maintaining freedom of expression and assembly
on campus.
Targeted aims:
Protest Response Team – The PRT was developed following the November 9 2011 protests by
campus leadership, replacing the CMT. The Police Review Board report on November 9 2011
details the function and response of the CMT during the Nov. 9 events and the subsequent
development of the PRT, and details (in Appendix C) the PRT roles. DSA has been asked to
provide a representative to the PRT, and discussions by the DSA throughout Spring 2013
indicated interest with caution.
Points of Discussion / Suggested Actions:
(1) We need to determine our desired role in contributing faculty voice to the PRT and
determine if we can play that role in the context of their offer. To this end, we could invite
Ann Jeffrey (staff, PRT) to Oct or Nov meeting to discuss the role of the PRT.
(2) Write up role of DSA liason to the PRT and initiate dialog with PRT members/Chancellor to
see if our goals are consistent with their invitation to membership/presence.
UCPD – One of the senate goals when establishing the DSA was to open communication
between faculty representatives and the UCPD. Former DSA Chair MacCoun was invited to
be present during the hiring of the new police chief, and there is clear interest on behalf of
the current Police Chief to communicate with faculty and provide a framework for feedback
between faculty and the police, particular in defining police action during demonstrations on
campus.
Points of Discussion / Suggested Actions:
(1) The police review board (PRB) has responsibilities above and beyond demonstrations and
protests; do we want to have any input to PRB activities that are specific to protests, and
would we want to state that collaboration prior to an event so that a mechanism is in place?
(2) Invite police chief to Oct or Nov meeting.
(3) In collaboration with police chief, come up with a series of recommendations for developing
a specific and detailed plan of action (including escalation) for response to protests;
establishing a clear and transparent chain of command that is specific to the needs of the
campus community; incorporating civilian oversight from administrative and faculty ranks.
2013-2014 accomplishments:
(1) At our December meeting we hosted Protest Response Team members Ann
Jeffrey (Wilton’s chief of staff), EVCP George Breslauer and VCAF John Wilton.
Breslauer and Wilton co-chair the PRT. We reviewed the PRT charter and discussed
at length the principles that guide PRT. We reviewed the 12 month report that the
PRT prepared for the UCOP, highlighting efforts and accomplishments to changes in
campus practices related to protest responses, as mandated by the UCOP in
response to the Brazil and Robinson-Edley reports. We also received from Ann
Jeffrey the full document tracking Berkeley’s list of all Robinson-Edley Report
recommendations and their status. Since this time, the report has been submitted
and all recommendations have been addressed. Academic Senate leadership is well
represented on the PRT, obviating the need to have a member of DSA directly on the
PRT. However, mechanisms for communication between the PRT and DSA was not
APPROVED
directly established and should be considered essential if the DSA is to remain active
as a senate committee.
(2) Police Chief Bennett attended our October meeting. Prior to the meeting we
presented her with a list of questions pertaining to escalation of force, mutual aid,
and police policy for responding to demonstrations on campus. We had a long and
productive discussion in which she referred to the new policies on Crowd Control
and demonstrated (as did the PRT) the incorporation of a ‘wait and see’ policy,
catering police action to the exact situation at hand with efforts taken to maintain
open dialog and communication and to involve local parties (department chairs,
deans, faculty, etc). She also, as did the PRT, emphasize that no police action would
be taken without administrative presence on the ground.
(3) Professor Emeritus Robert Cole (Law) was invited to the April meeting to share
his considerable knowledge about the First Amendment, freedom of expression, and
civil disobedience within the broad context of a university campus. His presentation
was grounded in the historical and political framework that sparked the Free
Speech Movement and that continues to resonate at Berkeley 50 years later.
(3) Mutual Aid
Background: Our investigations suggested that a major source of concern for both
campus-wide safety and freedom of expression is the “mutual aid” practice by which
our police department recruits neighboring departments for assistance in times of
need. We received somewhat conflicting descriptions about whether the University
has a clear and unambiguous chain of command in these cases, and whether there
are adequate safeguards to ensure that neighboring police departments consistently
comply with the campus standards regarding appropriate circumstances and
methods for the escalation of force.
Targeted Goal: The 2011-2012 committee agreed unanimously that one area in which we could
have a major influence and impact on campus policy safeguarding academic freedoms during
demonstrations and student actions would be through a study of the police policies associated
with mutual aid. We have support from UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy to
develop a study of mutual aid policies and practices nationally as part of their Introduction to
Policy Analysis as a client-based project.
2013-2014 accomplishments:
DSA committee members Robert Dudley and Deborah Blocker submitted a proposal
to the GSPP to undertake a student project to study mutual aid policies.
Unfortunately, though extremely insightful and well developed, the proposal was
not selected by any of the current students for a group project. Further enquiries
concerning the basis of the proposal's rejection yielded no response, nor was the
proposal selected in the 2nd round by a masters student. Communication with a
faculty member in GSPP similarly yielded no further insight into this situation. For
2014-2015, we plan to work more closely with GSPP to prepare our proposal and to
APPROVED
ascertain ahead of time those factors which might predispose selection by a student
group.
In our discussion with Police Chief Bennett, we determined that mutual aid was
considered a last resort by the UCPD, with police from other UC campuses first in
line to respond if local campus police felt the need. It is also clear that UC training is
specific to campus policies and that, if brought on campus, Berkeley and Oakland
police forces are acting under the UC police guidelines but will still respond given
their non-UCPD training practices.
Conclusions
Overall, we have accomplished all goals relating to our three main initiatives this
year. We feel that open lines of communication and an atmosphere of mutual
respect can be established given the attention to detail regarding
police/administration/student interactions and the implementation of the
recommendations brought forth by the Robinson-Edley report. After the events of
Fall 2011, the UC Berkeley administration introduced many key reforms to its
handling of protests, and shared the underlying principles with us. The most
important features are:
1) The campus recognizes that unless violence is imminent or the university's core
academic mission is being seriously disrupted, in general the best response to a
protest/demonstration is to watch carefully, engage in an open dialog, and let the
demonstration play itself out. Patience is a virtue.
2) Unless violence is immediate and police must respond in the moment to defend
themselves or to protect others, all police action against student demonstrators
shall be undertaken with a senior administration official present at the scene.
3) Decisions regarding what to do regarding a localized disturbance on campus shall
be taken with the input and consultation of the local units impacted by the
disturbance.
4) The campus recognizes and has clearly stated (see Regulations Concerning Time,
Place and Matter of Public Expression) that it has a special obligation to protect free
inquiry and free expression. On University grounds open to the public generally, all
persons may exercise the constitutionally protected rights of free expression,
speech and assembly. Such activities must not, however, interfere with the right of
the University to conduct its affairs in an orderly manner and to maintain its
property, nor may they interfere with the University's obligation to protect the
rights of all to teach, study, and freely exchange ideas.
APPROVED
5) In general, demonstrations that play themselves out peacefully will not be
referred for either criminal prosecution or the student conduct process.
For the coming year, we feel that it is essential for the committee to increase our
participation in multiple campus-wide initiatives in order to ensure that the policies
on crowd control continue to ensure an environment that promotes freedom of
expression, with a particular focus on playing a positive role in developing a clear
campus-wide policy concerning civil disobedience and freedom of speech.