The weight of ethics has finally come down on the administration of Linda Katehi, chancellor of the University of California, Davis. The embattled chancellor has been battling with faculty and students since 2011 and the infamous campus police pepper spray incident. The students were sprayed because they were protesting against “Wall Street.” There seems to be strange ethics afoot at UC – Davis.
What launched the ethics probe was a series of questionable decisions by Katehi. Going back to the pepper spraying of students, there was allegedly $175,000 in payments to social media/public relations consultants to minimize any negative publicity. Initially, the chancellor claimed she had nothing to do with the PR cover-up, but it turned out that she did. Again strange ethics…
However, that was not the only reason that Katehi was forced to resign. Katehi employed immediate family members (her son and daughter-in-law) for her staff and while there was no direct link to nepotism, she made short-cuts in terms of established university policy. Strange ethics indeed.
Her poor judgment did not even end there. She went further by accepting payments for sitting on the boards of textbook publisher John Wiley & Sons, and most strange, the DeVry Education Group.
While Katehi resigned from DeVry (she apologized because it was against policy), but kept on with John Wiley (because she said it did not violate policy). Nevertheless, she is still professor in the college of engineering and will keep the title of chancellor emeritus. Where is all this strange ethics leading?
No wonder people were angry
Pepper spraying students was not the smartest thing to do. Pepper spray in not harmless but for this discussion, it is not the main issue. If, as an administrator, you have made the decision to end a campus protest why then authorize a large chunk of money to aid in a cover-up? Even worse, why authorize the money and then deny you had any role in its approval? In making this denial you are being unethical in the sense of having a staff member take the blame for your actions.
Speaking of staff, while it may not have been “nepotism” in the strictest sense, Katehi was walking a very dangerous tightrope in employing two relatives to staff positions. It not only gave the impression of impropriety but also of insulation and secretive behavior.
In terms of board participation, Katehi who is well versed in university policy, should have known better as well. Both the DeVry conflict and the John Wiley & Sons payments further cast doubt as to the chancellor’s ethics. What student or any reasonable party would not believe that she profited from any sale of a John Wiley & Sons book? What observer would not believe that she was using her position as the chancellor at a prestigious university to lend credibility to another school?
It is not at all a reach to understand why the student body (honestly) rejoiced when she stepped down.
Every poor decision that Katehi made was indicative of someone who saw no consequences for her actions and there was obviously no one within the university’s structure who reviewed her decisions. She had free reign to bend the rules to follow her whims.
What is so surreal to me is that after she stepped down as chancellor, she was able to retain a title and return to her previous position in the school of engineering. While I am not certain of how the University of California, Davis sets its policies given the vagaries of tenure, I cannot help but believe that anger still festers that Katehi is well fixed after what seems like a slap on the wrist.
Unless there are consequences and new policies put into place, the university is setting itself up for future ethical disappointments.
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!
