Clearly the Davis faculty is deeply split: about the campus leadership, about how to respond to the police violence, and about the general direction in which Davis is moving. Slightly more faculty cast votes on the clear no-confidence motion than on the "five points" motion; Katehi's support on the latter dropped over 100 votes. It is clear that the majority of the Senate Faculty are unwilling to break with the Chancellor. Beyond this, how Davis will respond in the future to Katehi or to the reports about police violence on campus is unclear.
This ambiguity is especially evident if you read the "five points" motion. Here is the language:
"Be it therefore resolved that the Davis Division of the Academic Senate:
- Condemns both the dispatch of police in response to non-violent protests and the use of excessive force that led to the deplorable pepper-spraying events of November 18, 2011.
- Opposes all violent police responses to non-violent protests on campus.
- Demands that police deployment against protesters be considered only after all reasonable administrative efforts to bridge differences have been exhausted, including direct consultation with the leadership of the Davis Division of the Academic Senate.
- Accepts Chancellor Linda Katehi’s good faith apology.
- Expresses confidence in Chancellor Linda Katehi’s leadership and efforts to place UC Davis among the top 5 public universities in the nation."
In other words, the message sent here is that violence against students is "deplorable"—but let's put it into perspective: it was really a blip in Davis's rise to prominence and should be put behind us.
Senate Faculty who did not think that the police violence was sufficient to declare no-confidence in the Chancellor had the option of simply voting no. Given that, the "five points" motion appears to be an effort to appear to care about the violence to students without really addressing the issue.
What message does that send to students?