The University in Crisis

An email alert graced my inbox not five minutes ago. A police officer at Virginia Tech was shot today. The details are still sketchy, but it appears as though the shooting took place during a traffic stop on campus. While the severity of the shooting is still unknown and the possibility of a second victim was reported, the report indicates no suspect has yet been apprehended. A campus-wide alert is in effect telling students and faculty to stay inside. It is at least tacitly ironic that today is the day that Virginia Tech is defending itself for a fine imposed due to its response (or lack thereof) in 2007, an event that still reverberates today. For those who recall the murderous rampage at Virginia Tech, this report is chilling and telling; our children live in a much different world today. Many claim that the murders of the “student gunman” who killed 32 students and faculty before killing himself at Virginia Tech represent a turning point in how campus police operate, but I contend that the relational alignment between campus police and the communities they serve did not change overnight. Virginia Tech provided a convenient justification for campus police, but in reality the relationship between campus cops and students has not been cordial for some time now.

Look at any local law enforcement agency’s regalia and you will find somewhere the words, “To protect and to serve.” Ostensibly the protection and service is provided to the community, the law-abiding citizens who, through their tax dollars, employ the force that is serving them. While never asked out loud, the implicit, perhaps rhetorical, question arises, “Protection from whom… or what?” Of course this is rhetorical because the answer is obvious, but it is decidedly not rhetorical when one digs through many of the police endeavors to “protect” us. While overzealous police activity is nothing new – indeed, it appears that a peculiar attraction of the job appeals to at least a few who are prone to egotistic exertions of power – there is something darker than just a few cops using too much force to counter criminal activity. Whereas the Rodney King beating was clear example of excess of power institutionalized within the Los Angeles Police Department, Rodney King was a criminal in the purest sense of the word. This does not excuse the excessive use of force by the LAPD, but it does highlight a troubling paradigm shift that something darker is going on here. Who are the criminals today, particularly in the institutional mind of campus police?

If the events last month at the Davis and Berkeley campuses of the University of California are any indication, the relationship is adversarial at best. Now it could be argued that those were isolated incidents and that the police were simply following orders, but it makes little difference whether either or both of those contentions are true. What could not be established in both cases is the presence of criminals or criminal intent. As the viral YouTube videos of the incidents show, the campus police were squared off against students and faculty who were peaceably protesting. Although it is true that they may have been violating some local rules, ordinances or – how dare they – decorum, they were not criminals any more than my receiving a speeding ticket makes me one. The battle cry from the defenders of force, “they were breaking the law, they deserve what they got” can be carried to logical absurdity by calling for the death penalty for parking violations. Using OC spray (euphemistically referred to as “pepper-spray”) and batons on peaceful, non-violent protestors, whether or not they are “breaking the rules,” is an inappropriate use of force. Period.

But this relationship goes much deeper than a couple of publicly displayed instances of (extremely) poor judgment by campus police. And this overall attitude, while certainly apparent in those who find the power of law enforcement intoxicating, exists at the upper levels of campus police administration. Shortly after the YouTube video of the UC Davis police attempts to “enforce” the law against those they are charged with protecting and serving, UCDPD Chief Annette Spicuzza defended her officers stating that they were “surrounded” and just needed to exit. She continued to defend them until she was silenced by “paid administrative leave.” As mentioned earlier, the video tells us much, and part of that “much” is that Spicuzza’s justification is patently false. And until the outrage went global, the upper levels of administration at UC Davis, including Chancellor Linda Katehi, condoned the actions of its law enforcement agency. When adversarial attitude comes from the top, is it any wonder the rank and file view the students as the enemy?

As a point of reference, a recent event on the Louisiana State University campus indicates how campus police leadership can positively influence the actions of its officers. Last summer a communication studies graduate student attempted to make a political statement by burning a US flag on the parade grounds. While ill advised, the action is constitutionally protected. On that day, protection is exactly what the student needed. A predictably angry mob of (mostly) other students mounted a counter-protest and his safety was anything but guaranteed. According to the student, the LSU campus police, while sympathetic to the counter-protesters, still managed to usher him away to safety. However, those officers also felt that he might deserved to be charged with some violation – perhaps the ever-popular law against using poor judgment? Causing a scene? Or maybe even a real law such as unlawful assembly or inciting a riot… regardless, the upper levels of police administration never let that happen. One would expect rational judgment from police administrators and at LSU, apparently, that expectation is realized.

It is perhaps logical that in the wake of Virginia Tech, campus police would reassess their role in campus life. However, the murderous rampage there and other equally random acts are just that, random. There is little that could have been done at Virginia Tech short of a total police state, and even then a determined nut-case would be able to carry out a similar slaughter. There was, after the tumultuous 60s where campus police exhibited a similar adversarial relationship (climaxing with the Ohio National Guard shooting 13 students, killing four at Kent State in 1970), a détente in campus police/student relations. I experienced it as a student at San Diego State University from 1983 -1985. As a initiate and later a member of a large national fraternity, I was involved in my share of pranks – pranks that occasionally brought me into contact with campus police. While I was sternly admonished and even detained for short periods of time, the police at the time knew who they were dealing with – a young, immature and easily influenced college student. In my two years at SDSU, I cannot remember one student ever being arrested and never once did I see any indication of militancy even at very large student gatherings such as home football games.

When I returned to college in earnest, it was 2003. The school was American River College, a community college in Sacramento, California. At the time, the campus police did not carry guns, but they were lobbying for the right to do so, arguing that there was the possibility that they might face a situation for which they would be ill-prepared. The student apprehension was palatable; many asking what recent situation would lead the police to believe that such a scenario was forthcoming. Despite overwhelming student disapproval, the ARC campus police now carry guns and, not surprisingly, have had occasion to use them. While the presence of weapons and riot gear does not foretell an occasion to use them, being prepared for an all out assault does signify the anticipation that such an event could occur. But the question should be, from whom would the aggression originate? A campus police force rarely deals with non-students. Are they expecting the students to mount a counter-offensive?

After transferring to California State University, Sacramento in 2005, my major was journalism. Upon completing my internship, even before graduation, I was a professional journalist – I had a real job at a real newspaper writing real news about real people and got paid real money to do it. It was not a campus newspaper. In my capacity as a journalist I was in contact with city police, county sheriffs and state highway patrol on a regular basis. Our relationship was always cordial even when investigating occasional police transgressions. I also had occasion to write stories that required input from the California State University police. I presented myself, depending on the context of the story, sometimes as a student journalist and others as just a journalist, and found the level of cooperation only slightly better when not identifying as a student journalist. My interviews were always with police “spokespersons” or upper administration and in both my journalistic roles, when asking probing questions I was met with indifference, indignation and more than once, disrespect. I was even underhandedly threatened with arrest on one occasion – for simply asking questions. This was before Virginia Tech and on a relatively quiet campus. As a student journalist, I would expect that the campus police would have viewed our relationship as synergistic rather than adversarial. After all, are we not on the same team? Are we not both members of the same campus community? It is as though the campus police, and more importantly, their leadership, have set themselves apart from and outside the campus to which they serve.

It is difficult to say if the new militarism exhibited by many campus police forces is a reflection of the recent militarism seen throughout the nation in the various “Occupy” protests or not. An argument can be made that the 1999 World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference in Seattle was the turning point in the forced quelling of protest activity. The tolerance gained through the sacrifices in the 60s appears the have been forgotten. A college campus is no place to silence descent, as University of California President Mark Yudof said in the wake of the infamous “pepper-spray” incident at UC Davis,  “free speech is part of the DNA of this university.” If campus police use force to quiet civil disobedience the way civil rights protesters were dealt with in Montgomery, Alabama just a half-century ago, what is that telling our students? Although this is a dangerous trend, the public outrage in the aftermath of the twin uses of force in Berkeley and Davis is hopeful. Maybe we haven’t forgotten after all.

Seriously Questioning Authority

I have not had time to write in this space in quite a while. I do not have time now. But I am compelled by the recent police action on the campus of University of California, Davis. I, like a great many others, was appalled at the egregious violence perpetrated upon the peacefully protesting students last Friday afternoon. Many have come to the defense of the university police department saying that the students were breaking the law and failed to obey police orders. That is true, they knowingly did both. They likely expected to be arrested and might even have foreseen the use of OC spray (euphemistically referred to as “pepper-spray") against them. The numerous YouTube videos tell a very compelling story, but as many have pointed out, the videos do not tell the whole story. The question is, do they tell enough?

Without completely rehashing the institutional “he-said/she-said,” it is important to at least set the stage. Students at UCD were protesting – it doesn’t even matter what they were protesting. People protest about all sorts of things all the time, college students do it almost as a right of passage. Part of the protest was an “encampment,” a form of protest that seems to be all the rage these days. UCD policy prohibits “camping” on campus and in the interest of student safety and with a blind adherence to policy, Chancellor Linda Katehi ordered the tents, not the protestors, removed. According to her statements today, she was adamant that the police do nothing else, that a confrontation like the one that occurred at University of California, Berkeley days earlier was not to occur.

Apparently, the UCD Police Department (not to be confused with the City of Davis PD – an important distinction that will come up again shortly) did not understand this directive. Now, what we do not know is whether Katehi is telling the truth, - if that was indeed her directive. At the moment it looks as though she is sincere, but time will tell. Regardless, the video(s) show the UCDPD came to the scene in full riot gear, each carrying multiple “zip-tie” handcuffs and a full “non-lethal” arsenal including “pepper-spray” paint-ball guns, OC spray in fire extinguisher-size canisters and batons, at the ready. After dismantling the tents and arresting the protestors occupying them, supporters sat in a circle around the encampment, arms interlocked in absolutely non-confrontational, non-violent solidarity with the cuffed campers.

But they were blocking the pathway through the quad between the officers and their vehicles. There were numerous officers both inside and outside the circle. Nonchalantly, one officer, later identified as UCDPD Lt. John Pike, casually stepped over the seated protestors and proudly displayed a can of OC spray to the bystanders, the officers outside the ring and the protestors before spraying the seated, peaceful, non-violent protestors, emptying the can at point blank range in a sweeping motion like he was applying Miracle Grow to his garden. When he ran out, he motioned for another officer to bring his canister and continue the dousing. All actions are in apparent violation of the UC’s own policies. In the words of Katehi, it was “chilling” and the president of the entire University of California system called it “appalling.” It was all that and more.

Of course the story has garnered worldwide attention. Of course. How could it not? UCDPD Chief Annette Spicuzza defended her officers stating that they were “surrounded” and just needed to exit, insisting the officers were in danger. She continued to defend them until she was silenced by a “paid administrative leave” (joining Pike and the other officer). As mentioned earlier, the video tells us much, and part of that “much” is that Spicuzza’s justification is patently false. Remember that warning not to confuse the UCDPD with the city police? That’s because the city police were there due to a call for mutual aid. One DPD officer, later identified as Captain Darren Pytel, is easy to spot. He only appears for a few seconds, but he has no riot gear. His hands are empty, open and gesturing for calm. And he looks bewildered. It does not look as though he has the same “respect” for the “volatility” of the situation that the UCDPD expected.

It was a volatility that never manifested despite the UCDPD’s best efforts. Now I don’t know what their mindset was, but when the police go into a situation that heavily armed with riot gear and weaponry, they are expecting a confrontation. Perhaps they were disappointed that the students did not read the script. The students acted in a way far more mature than many give them credit for. The UCDPD underestimated their “adversary” and came completely ill prepared for passivity. They went in with an agenda that they would be facing students completely uncharacteristic of the students on a campus that they police all day every day. It is their only jurisdiction. They should have known better, even if no directive was ever sent down not to “create another Berkley.”

The question left is the time honored who-knew-what-when? Whose decision was this and whose head should roll? To her credit, Katehi is not sweeping this under the rug. She and UC President Mark Yudof are appropriately appalled and have publicly expressed as much, probably against the advice of their lawyers. If what Katehi said is true, Spicuzza is history and Pike should be, too. Even if Pike was “just following orders,” an officer of his rank and experience should have made a better assessment in the deployment of force. His salary is $110,000 (of your money) per year. For that much money he should be expected to think.

These are not “rank and file” officers. They are administrators, executives, they are paid to correctly asses situations, follow directives and ensure that those they are hired to protect are not harmed in the process of “protecting” them. On the quad of UC Davis, Friday afternoon, 18 November 2011, no one was served or protected and someone needs to answer for it. At last count, no less than four independent investigations are in process. What is on the video is obvious and the overwhelming public outrage is telling, but there are many questions that need to be answered. The ultimate questions are: Who is responsible and who will answer with his or her job? Because this is a job-costing mistake.

Not Just Any CEO

Although I must admit I was not entirely surprised to learn of Steve Jobs’ passing today, it is also true that I am more than a little taken aback. I knew his health was failing even before Jobs’ as much as admitted so when he stepped down as Apple’s CEO last August. I am, however, a little surprised that the turning of this final page in his life has me as reflective as it does. I am not a fan nor am I a groupie, but I am an admirer - and it is not just because of my devotion to a superior product line built by the company he cofounded less than two miles from where I grew up. That garage where Apple’s humble beginnings were forged could have been any garage in the sleepy Palo Alto/Los Altos/Mountain View tri-city area. A legend was born right in our back yards by a pair of visionaries who were not much older than I am.

And maybe that is part of it. At 56, Jobs was not an old man. Of course, 30 years ago my opinion of what constituted “old” would have placed Jobs squarely in that category, but at 48, I’m thinking Jobs was just hitting his prime much the same as Apple is… and I am. He was a man who had it all - way more than just material wealth. He was (is) highly respected as a businessman as well as a human; he was fiercely private in his personal life and at the same time never shunned the spotlight when it came promoting his company; he was not only a visionary, he was also universally recognized as such; and most importantly, he changed the world. He made peoples lives better. Millions of them.

He made my life better. Not in a big way, not like he touched so many others, but Jobs provided me with products I could count on, almost always without fail. That is how he touched perhaps most of us, but for some his impact is even more profound. The employees of Apple are of course beneficiaries of his legacy, but so are the thousands upon thousands of employees of other companies that are peripheral to the market Jobs carved out for Apple. Accessories companies, parts manufacturers, carpenters, plumbers, even truck drivers and airplane pilots (just to name a very few) have a share in the business Apple produced. And it all started in that small garage.

Apple is more than just a great hardware and software manufacturer. And it is more than just knowing what the secret to business success is. Indeed, it is hardly a secret, but one would not know it from the many companies that come and go that cannot seem to grasp three simple precepts. Apple engineers and produces very high quality products. Although it is hard to go wrong when your quality is a notch above everyone else’s, that is not enough. Apple also knows where their money comes from. The customer is Apple’s number one priority and it doesn’t take much interaction with an Apple employee before one feels like it. Finally and perhaps the most elusive part of the secret, a successful corporation must have employees who are happy and loyal. At Apple, they are part of a family. Throughout Jobs’ tenure, these three factors have not only been policy, they have been culture and one that allows them to charge top dollar because the customer is still getting more than he or she paid for.

As much as the above will keep a company afloat for a very long time, at some point new product ideas will hit a dry spell. Long-term dominance relies on the insights of a visionary like Jobs who can not only see the what the technology coming down the pipe can do, but can also develop products based on that technology that we don’t even know we want. Yes, Jobs did that. He transformed the way we do so much because his intuition told him what we needed before we needed it. And he filled that need while keeping quality high, his employees happy and loyal and all the while telling me, the customer, that I am the most important person in the Apple organization.

There are people who wish they had what Jobs had. They envy his power, his prestige and his money. But I wonder if they would trade places with him now, to have all that and pass away at such an early age? I might – not in exchange for his power or his prestige or his wealth – but for the ability to make the world a better place for so many people. Steve Jobs has done on a massive scale what too few are willing to do on even a personal scale. I, too, want to change the world; I want to make it a better place. His vision inspires me and his legacy continues to. Jobs will be sorely missed… and he’s leaving some mighty big shoes to fill.

Reconstitution

It has been six weeks since my last blog post. Since starting this journal almost six years ago, this is the longest span between entries yet. And it is not as though there is nothing worthwhile to write about… I am at a loss to explain just why I have not taken the few minutes needed to reflect here over the course of these past weeks. True, I am busy, busier than ever, but it does not take long to do this type of writing. My archives tell a story, and the frequency of entries is a story in and of itself. The “perspectives, purpose and opinion,” as the subtitle states, are still pronounced, but my motivation to document them has definitely waned.

This blog was started as a living record of my trials and tribulations in a post apocalyptic world. No, the world did not experience an apocalypse – you would have heard – but mine did. This blog began as my world began to reconstitute itself. And that world is a very different place. That is where the “perspective” comes into play. The “opinion” posts are easily identified and there are many, some with the mixed mission of identifying perspective as well, but the middle term, “purpose,” has always been somewhat indescribable. I have written about purpose many times, but as far as nailing it down to something specific, well, that is likely never going to happen.

Those familiar with my story (either through reading these entries over the years or because they know me personally) also know that my life nearly came to an end almost 11 years ago. In each of the past five years I wrote a commemoration of that ill-fated day, but that series is over. After the 10-year mark I felt I said all there is to say about the incident specifically and I will not rehash it here. Inquiring minds can find the last entry in the series with links to the other posts here. However, the reconstitution is not complete as I find myself now in a place that I never dreamed possible in my pre-apocalyptic days. Despite my lack of posting anything recently to the “official record,” the wonder and amazement are still there.

Tonight I can be found in my apartment in Baton Rouge, just two blocks from the Louisiana State University campus. I arrived here on August 12^th after four days of driving the 2,200 miles from Sacramento, Calif. with a trailer full clothes, books, my bike (no, not my Harley, it is still in Sacramento… and we don’t need to talk about that) and other necessities needed for survival. My driving companion/co-pilot/soul-mate was with me 24/7 right up until she had to fly back to Sacramento on August 15^th, the date of my last blog entry titled, Upheaval. The title is self-explanatory. Tonight, after six weeks here, I have “settled in” to the extent possible, but to say that I am at home here is a stretch. But at the same time, the upheaval I wrote about has faded away.

However, the change is still fresh. I still miss home, my friends, my family and especially one very special lady who is not only suffering with me, but also suffering for me and because of me. And if wasn’t for some indescribable, nebulous purpose that is driving me, I would not have put either of us through this. Thankfully she understands; she doesn’t like it, but she understands. Nothing worth doing is easy and although the “pay-off” can be measured in the material (i.e., a Ph.D. will secure a good job doing what I love and carry me through retirement), if that was all I was after, I could have done it with an MA and at home. There is more – something is pulling me, something is “out there,” something that has probably been calling to me my entire life. And it took a personal apocalypse to realize it. It could come from the same muses that sang to Aristotle, Cicero and other wonderers or it could be a calling uniquely my own, but to deny it is to deny myself.

And that, once again, is as close to purpose as I can get. I cannot define it in anything more than abstract, nebulous, general terms. Like love, something we know exists, no one can show me a pound of love. I cannot go to a store and by a bag of it. I can find it represented in art but art itself is not love. But I know it is real. With every heartbeat I can feel it. And so it is with purpose. I cannot ignore it; this “purpose” is real.

Upheaval

Writing is among the things I do best. This is not to say that mine is any better or worse than anyone else’s writing (qualifying my craft is a job for those who read it), but it is absolutely a reflection on something I am very comfortable with. Through the written word I can access parts of my psyche that are otherwise difficult to reach. It could be that it slows my thinking down enough to actually be cognizant of my thoughts as they parade through my mind… or it might be that the part of my brain used to compose these symbols is not the same as my real-time, on the fly and instantaneous part… or it might be something altogether different. I suppose if I were to sit down and examine that phenomenon through my writing, the exercise would reveal insights, but that is not my purpose tonight.

Tonight I am decidedly not comfortable. And writing brings me a sense of ease that few other things do. Since my world tonight is upside-down, writing about it is a source of solace that I am usually reluctant to engage, but it always brings relief. Tonight I find myself in a new city in a new state at a new school embarking on a new goal. Almost everything familiar, including the geography, the weather, the time zone, my family, my friends and especially my girlfriend are still in California. Furthermore, while certainly not in the same class as the people I love so much, I had to leave my Harley behind, too. But since its benefit is largely reliant upon the Northern California roads I am so familiar with, my bike might actually cause me more stress here than meditative comfort. But I digress…

This is about change. Major change. And though I signed up for it and knew this was coming, the cold hard reality is just that - cold and hard. I have felt this before, many years ago when I was just out of high school. I left the home of my childhood to go to school in San Diego. I was unprepared for the isolation I felt in every respect but one; I was just 20 years old and far more resilient. Now 49, I have embarked on an adventure better suited for a much younger person. Exciting? Of course. Intriguing? Absolutely. But I have left a far more entrenched and established life and network than I could have possibly attained at 20. My past experience tells me this discomfort will get better. Not in respect to missing my home and friends and most profoundly, my girlfriend – that angst will remain prominent, but in time I will establish profession relationships and personal friendships here. That, however, will take some time.

In the meantime, I am struck with the wisdom of age without the resilience of youth. There is, however, another distinct difference between this move and past others. In the past, I was not so much moving toward the positive as I was moving away from the negative. What I left behind was not much and the discomfort felt upon arriving was no worse than the stagnation I felt prior to. This time there was nothing to run from. But Baton Rouge is where LSU, the school that offered me the opportunity of a lifetime, is and this is where I must be for many months out of the next three or four years… it can’t happen anywhere else. In this case, it is not a choice between the lesser of two evils, but rather a temporary sacrifice that I willingly undertook to advance my professional credentials. That will, in turn, positively influence mine and my family's security when I am finished. It will also place me in a job so satisfying that it will hardly feel like work.

But change is still uncomfortable and major change is majorly uncomfortable. Human nature tends to resist change and I am nothing if not human. Eventually I will become more used to the situation I have placed myself, but I am afraid that leaving those who love me and whom I love will always remain heavy on my heart. Reunions will be frequent, but bittersweet, as each will be accompanied by yet another departure at some point until this goal is completed, at which time, of course, a new challenge and more change, probably major change, will come again. This never gets easier, but at least this time it represents an advance, not a retreat. Seems like that should help, but it doesn’t…

Petty Crimes

I live in a pretty nice neighborhood. It is in an unincorporated suburb in Sacramento County, Calif. known as Fair Oaks. The subdivision I live in is a relatively new development (late 70s) called Rollingwood. Although we are certainly not crime-free, the level of criminal activity here is low and for the most part petty. Of course, there are exceptions, but all in all, this is a very quiet neighborhood. One of my neighbors across the street started a neighborhood watch email list so that the residents are kept up to date on what is going on around here. The following letter is to alert my neighbors of a petty crime that occurred in my driveway last night or early this morning…

Dear Rollingwood residents,

Last night I failed to roll up my windows in my car. Although it was parked in my driveway on Long Canyon Dr., and my outdoor lights were on, someone decided it was worth entering my car to see what could be had. Fortunately there was not much there, but some items in the tray of my center console were taken – and the tray was taken as well. There was a small pocketknife, a silver ring and broken silver rope chain necklace… maybe a couple of other items as well. All tolled, these items were not worth much and with the exception of the tray itself, nothing that I will really miss. But the value of these items and whether I will miss them or not is obviously not the point. The sanctity and security of my home was violated and this would (or should) piss anyone off. The crime did not go totally undetected - there are always clues. The following is what I believe to be a probable scenario:

Although I do not know for sure when it occurred, my kids’ dogs were barking at about 5 a.m. this morning. They will bark whenever they sense someone outside my house, but usually it is nothing. This time we should have listened and let them out for if I had, I would be writing a much different story. It is also probable that the dogs scared off the punk(s) before they had a chance to search in any depth – much more was left than was taken. This was a crime of opportunity; there was no need to check to see if the car was open, it clearly was. I have not checked my security cameras yet, but due to where the car was parked and the pre-dawn darkness, I don’t expect they will reveal much. But here is the sad truth; the criminal(s) involved are most likely living among us.

This is a crime a kid would commit – one or more of your kids (not necessarily your kid, but very likely one of our neighbors’) and/or one or more of their associates. It is highly unlikely that someone would be casing this neighborhood in search of a car with its windows open to see what kind of score could be made. These are not professionals, but they are absolutely criminals in training. So here is the $64,000 question: Do you know where your kids were early this morning? Are any of them sporting a slick little pocketknife (it’s red and about an inch and a half to two inches long when folded), or a silver rope necklace or a silver ring? You might ask them how they came up with these things, because they among the things that were lifted from my car. I sure don’t want anyone to take this personally and I am by no means accusing every kid in this neighborhood of being a thief, but the evidence is pretty clear that at least one is. There is an opportunity here for a proactive, alert parent to stop a lifetime of bad choices in its tracks.

Me? I just want my center console tray back.

Sincerely,

Michael K. Althouse