January 4, 2005

We received over 500 emails in response to our initial website that highlighted alcohol and drug abuse, sexual assault, and violence at UCSB. It was very instructive for us to review these emails in order to get a pulse of the UCSB/IV community’s perception of whether there is a problem or not. The emails fell into several definable categories:

* About 40% agreed or generally agreed with the contention that alcohol and drug abuse, sexual assault and violence were problems that are prevalent at UCSB.
* Another 40% disagreed or generally disagreed with the contentions.
* About 20% of the emails vehemently disagreed and were abusive or profane. Several of these emails actually threatened violence against the website supporters.

Clearly, we did not win the popularity contest.

Before we provide a more in-depth review of the emails, it should be noted that the emails that were read and analyzed all had valid UCSB addresses or we were able to verify their affiliation with UCSB.

Within the 40% who agreed that UCSB had problems and thought something needed to be done, the emails came from a cross-section of the community – students, graduate students, professors, and community members. The following excerpts represent the tone of their comments:

“I like that you are stating what is all too often swept under the rug, but how can we positively change the environment?”

“Thank you for putting this site together and for your efforts to change the UCSB/IV scene. I wish you every success and you can count on me for support – I will do anything I can do to help. As a parent whose child was killed in IV, I hope that you can spare even one family from going through our nightmare.”

“I just want to say I think what you guys are doing is great. I am by no means a right wing conservative, or religious fanatic, but neither do I condone the type of things that run rampant at UCSB, things like underage drinking. Keep up the good work you guys have my support.”

This group also generally agreed with our contention that the administration of UCSB has not adequately addressed the issues. They wrote:

“Isla Vista is given a "hands off" approach by the UCSB administrators. So please keep this web site up and running and don't back down to any pressure from UCSB regarding your web site address. It's totally ridiculous for them to say that anyone would be confused that your site is in any way affiliated with the University. The Administration should stop hiding behind their lawyers and their egos and wake up to the fact that their students are in real danger.”

“The Administration (of UCSB) ignores the problems.”

Many of our readers who generally agreed with our website included their phone numbers, their names, and offers of help with the website – thank you.

While it is always nice to hear from like-minded individuals who support the website’s positions, we actually learned more from the negative comments – a great deal more. If there was any doubt about whether there is a toxic ethos present at UCSB the disagreeing groups of emails did nothing to dispel the thought.

The 40% who contended that there were no problems or to the extent that problems existed, they were blamed on “weak” students who made poor “choices” or on the students’ families. Their comments attacking the families ran from “you should have taught your children better” to “your kids are weak and pathetic” to “your kids have problems because of overbearing parents” to “your kids have problems because you neglect them” to – well, you get the idea. This group was all over the map with the blame game. They have no truck with opinions other than their own. These emails tended to personalize the issue by attacking individuals or groups they did not like – lots of personal attacks, but very weak on cogent arguments. Basically these emails had similar themes to the pronouncements made by UCSB administration: There are no problems. and, if you can find any problems, UCSB is not to blame, and if there is an even a remote chance that UCSB is even slightly culpable, no one has the right to criticize UCSB but UCSB people.

Incredibly, while attacking anyone who would dare bring up the issues of sexual assault, alcohol and drug abuse, and violence at UCSB, most of these same emails reinforced the data about the existing problems with comments such as:

“When I initially heard about this website, I was furious. Why to try to ruin the reputation of UCSB and our future degrees which I myself have worked so hard for. No, IV is not the cleanest or safest place to live, but then again, where is?”

“I'm a fourth year student who is currently abroad for fall quarter 04. I must say that I don't agree with your methods of help for the students. This site is just the kind of thing that promotes exactly what it preaches against.”

“Sex, drugs and alcohol are very prevalent in IV but what is your point, no one is forced to partake.”

“There is a "dark side" here, but it's so easy to avoid, I don't even see the point in complaining about it. You seem to have a bone to pick with UCSB, and I'm very surprised and saddened that it's gone this far.”

“You are right in the premise that drugs, alcohol and violence is in abundance ... UCSB is not alone with their problems. Why single out UCSB.”

About 20% of the emails were abusive and profane. Of the 100 or so emails in this category, many contained epithets about Republicans, conservatives, white trash, and people who held religious views. There were no derogative comments about Democrats, secularists, minorities, or liberals. Generally speaking, this group apparently did not get the UCSB message of tolerance and diversity. Judge for yourself:

“Sex, drugs, booze, that’s what it is all about. Anyway, people who don't live in I.V. oughtn't to fuck around in our affairs. … we're pretty goddamn tired of getting pushed around when all we want to do is have a little fun with our four years in sunny Isla Vista.”

“Yes, UCSB can be viewed as what you deemed a "cesspool" of drugs, alcohol, and violence. But if your kids can’t make it here don’t blame UCSB, your kids were weak and pathetic. Fuck you.”

“little dick wads like you are the reason the notable fun iv scene is being destroyed. there is sexual and drug abuse all over the nation in ever city. that is life, if you can't deal with it in IV then you are a loser, you don't deserve to make it in the real world. You are inept. leave iv and the school alone and above all else FUCK YOU!”

“I think your web site is below criticism and its not ucsbs fault your kid fucked up. I have lived here many years and dont ever want to leave. It’s a great place to party.”

“the concept of blaming an institution for a "moral degradation" is ludicrous. For example, though it may be an extreme one, you can't completely blame the third reich for the extermination of 6 million Jews, there is a personal responsibility there that cannot be ignored.”

So at least one little Kool-Aid-drinker at UCSB compared the institution of the Third Reich with UCSB, but in her comparison neither institution is responsible for the acts of their individual members. Let me get this straight: neither the Third Reich nor UCSB is responsible for the actions of the members of their respective groups, but rather only the individuals within the Third Reich and UCSB who made poor choices are responsible? Or is she suggesting (as many of the emails we received stated) that the victims of the Third Reich and UCSB are somehow personally responsible because the victims made poor choices?

The concept of personal responsibility and choice came up a great deal. In fact, the phrase “bad choices” was ubiquitous. As you will see later in this article, it is one of the favorite self-exculpatory phrases of the administration.

By any objective standard, the emails sent to us clearly reflected, even among those who hate our website, a general belief that there is a hypersexual, drug, alcohol and violence ethos infesting the UCSB/IV area. Many of the emails we received attempt to excuse the bad behavior at UCSB by pointing to other schools with bad behavior.

The question is: does the perception (as reflected in the emails from students) that there is a great deal of drug and alcohol abuse at UCSB translate to a crime or violence problem?

CRIME

UCSB maintains that they have a “low crime rate on campus.” They attempt to support that contention by carefully parsing the crime reports. They refer to only a portion of the crime problem by using the term “on campus” to qualify their remarks. Since there are UCSB facilities in IV, this is a patently misleading statement. UCSB protests that they are being falsely accused if you even mention any problems associated with UCSB. But are there problems? If you use only comments, information, and reports that are produced by UCSB, and the incidents reported in the Nexus, you are forced to come to the conclusion that there are problems in Gaucholand – serious problems.

In April of 2004, under the byline “I.V.'s Rough Record Draws Campus, Community Action,” [http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2004/7170.html] the UCSB Nexus reported on a committee that was formed to “discuss ways to lessen violence in I.V.” According to the Nexus article the meeting was attended by UC officials, the police, elected officials, and others to address “increasingly gruesome police reports of assaults and batteries occurring on a weekly basis in I.V…” Gruesome? Sounds like some serious problems.

Unfortunately, even as this group was formed to address the issue of violence, some misinformation was reported when the Nexus article stated, “… statistics from the IVFP over the past six years do not show a significant upward trend in violent crime or alcohol-related crime.” Apparently, the Nexus, this committee, and UCSB may not have had read the 2003 Clery Report.

The "Clery Act" was named in memory of 19-year-old Lehigh University freshman Jeanne Ann Clery who was raped and murdered while asleep in her residence hall room on April 5, 1986. The Clery Act requires that all universities prepare and publish an annual crime report.

While the Clery report is instructive, it does not rank schools or provide the reader with any way to put the bare statistics of the report into perspective. Moreover, schools such as UCSB continually make public comments about their low crime rates “on campus.” As you will see, parsing of the report makes UCSB look good when, in fact, they have a serious problem.

Jeanne Clery’s parents, Connie and Howard, discovered that students hadn't been told about 38 violent crimes on the Lehigh campus in the three years before her murder (by way of comparison, in the last three years, UCSB reported 280 major crimes) The Clerys joined with other campus crime victims and persuaded Congress to enact this law, which was originally known as the "Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act of 1990." [http://www.securityoncampus.org]

The legislature found that there was a great deal of violent crime that surrounded some universities and that parents and students needed to be advised of the amount of violence. The perception of many, including many legislators, was that many universities actively concealed the existence of crime in and around their campus in order to enhance their school’s image.

According to the 2003 UCSB Cleary Report, there was an increase of over 141% in “forcible sexual assaults” over the 2002 UCSB Clery Report. Moreover, Aggravated Assaults increased by over 25%.

Many UCSB students, and to a large extent, the administration, simply deny that there is a problem at UCSB with alcohol, drugs, hyper sexuality, and violence. Some students are simply unaware of the extent of the problems because they have not personally experienced it. This explanation does not hold true for the administration – they know about the problems.

Many of the emails we received made comments that seemed to justify the permissiveness at UCSB by pointing to the bad behavior of others. A number of emails referenced schools with greater crime rates such as “inner city” schools. Another group seemed to enjoy casting aspersions on private schools such as BYU for being “tight assed.” We thought it might be appropriate to compare the Clery reports of UCSB to some different schools. We picked the University of Illinois at Chicago because several emails mentioned schools with higher crime rates in areas like Chicago. We picked BYU because several emails derided it for being too straight.

Here is how UCSB, UIC, and BYU compared for the years 2002 and 2003. We used the total (on campus, off campus and public property) crime statistics reported for each school.

*UIC has over 25,000 students, almost 40% more students than UCSB.

**BYU has approximately the same number of students as UCSB.

But aside from the statistics, there are the personal experiences of violence, sexual assault, and drug and alcohol abuse. Talk to any local physician (on or off campus) and you will learn about the numerous incidents that go unreported – literally hundreds every year.

IS UCSB RESPONSIBLE?

As startling as the figures are in the Clery Report for UCSB, the report actually underestimates the horrific effects of the UCSB/IV party scene mentality. The local crime statistics show merely part of the problem.

It is doubtful that anyone currently associated with UCSB would even know the name of Jeff Swanberg. Jeff was killed at about 5:30 a.m. on January 14, 2001, in a single car accident in King City, California, while returning to his home in the Bay Area from a night of partying at UCSB. Jeff was 18 years old and in his senior year of high school. The car Jeff was riding in flipped over when the driver, Jeff’s friend, attempted to exit the freeway at an excessive rate of speed. The driver, while not cited for being under the influence, had been drinking – he was 18 years old too. You will not find Jeff’s name in any crime or accident reports related to UCSB. His death is not reflected in the stark statistics of the Clery report. You cannot even find his name if you search the Nexus or the Santa Barbara News Press. But without a doubt, he, like so many other unreported casualties, was also a victim of the UCSB party scene.

These two young men used poor judgment. They stayed up all night, partied, drank, and then attempted to make a four-hour drive home starting a 3:00 a.m. But their poor choice wasn’t made in a vacuum. Didn’t the whole UCSB party scene create an environment that was a virtual irresistible inducement to two 18-year-olds that prompted them to make a bad choice?

Some would argue that you should not blame the University for the poor choices made by its students and the out-of-towners who come to IV to party. UCSB shouldn’t be held accountable the apologist would argue. But the party scene in IV is a direct result of the University’s presence over half of IV’s residents are UCSB students. Moreover, the University has not taken effective action to curtail the violence, alcohol and drugs.

Many in the UCSB community blame the out-of-towners for the problems of sexual assaults, drugs, alcohol abuse and violence found in IV. There is little question that the statistics substantiate the premise that out-of-towners add to the violence and crime problems associated with IV.

The largest population block in IV is UCSB students (over half of the residents are UCSB students). There are two other significant and identifiable blocks: 1) SBCC students (future UCSB students); and 2) former students (mostly dropouts and graduates) who love the party scene so much that they stay in IV. With such a high percentage of the population affiliated with UCSB, it is not possible to divorce the community’s standards from the University. While it is true that many of the problems are caused by the out-of-towners, IV cannot merely use the mythical “they” in deflecting culpability for the high crime statistic of an area dominated by its students.

A comparison might be in order: Saratoga, Jeff Swanberg’s hometown, has a population almost twice the size of Isla Vista. It is also a city that hosts a lot of out-of-towners in the evenings and on weekends. But the crime rate in IV is about 20 times higher – why?

Part of the answer rests with the demographics – the median age of people in IV is 21.1 years old. The median age in Saratoga is over 40.

But the major reason that crime is so high in IV has to do with the standards that the UCSB/SBCC/IV population set and their own behavior – the reason rests with how the community behaves and what they tolerate from others. The out-of-towners that visit Saratoga come to dine, shop, and stroll the streets and parks with their families whereas the out-of-towners coming to IV come to “party till we puke” – the same behavior that a huge block of IV residents engage in on a weekly basis. The UCSB/IV party scene is infamous for drugs, sex, and booze – all of which is available to underage people.

In order to assign some responsibility for what happens in IV, one needs to know what is it about IV that attracts people to come to IV to abuse alcohol and drugs and commit crimes such as battery and sexual assaults. It is the party reputation that is perpetuated by the UCSB student community is all but ignored by the administration. People go to the beach to enjoy the ocean; they go to the mountains to ski; and they go to IV to party, do drugs, abuse alcohol, and assault people, because that is where the party is located and tolerated.

But why should anyone blame UCSB for the problems of IV? It is impossible to divorce one from the other. IV is the invention and continuing product of UCSB. The heart and soul of the population is associated with UCSB in some way.

Many would defend the University by arguing that the University should not be held responsible for things that happen off campus. This is a simplistic argument that even UCSB would not proffer with a straight face. The University provides substantial resources towards off campus law enforcement. UCSB police, under UCSB policy of Extended Jurisdiction provides police services for IV. If you are stopped by the police in IV, even for a traffic ticket, it is very possible that you are actually being stopped by the UCSB campus police officers rather than a member of the IV Foot Patrol. UCSB has facilities in IV and even conducts classes there.

Moreover, the University has recently begun a program of reporting the arrest of UCSB students (even those over 18) to the parents of students cited for infractions in IV. Under this program, the University notifies the parents of underage students found using alcohol or who use false identifications. The University’s Extended Jurisdiction Program, which extends the jurisdiction of UCSB to the entire IV area is an unmistakable indication that the University clearly sees its responsibility to act – even when the crime occurs in IV. But surely no one would suggest that anyone within the administration has any personal responsibility. No one except those who look at the problem from an objective standpoint.

What Eric Simons (then editor-in-chief of the Nexus) wrote on October 2, 2001, [http://www.dailynexus.com/opinion/2001/1351.html] about Chancellor Yang speaks volumes about what Yang and the University intend to do about violence, drugs, and alcohol abuse in IV – nothing really. According to Eric’s article, “Chancellor Yang has sealed his popularity by frequenting the streets with his wife. They wander up and down, peering into parties, often on the biggest and rowdiest nights of the year. Yang has been complimented on his costume for Halloween and kicked out of parties by City College students who did not recognize him. ‘Spending time with students is an enjoyable part of our lives,’ Yang said. ‘Our students are most spirited, and we enjoy being with them, whether it is in the classroom, or at meetings and events we attend, or where they live, which, for a large proportion of students, is Isla Vista.”

Chancellor Yang walks around sealing his popularity with a wink and a nod at the IV party scene (a scene that includes copious amounts of illegal activities). Rather than provide his tacit approval by joining in the festivities, perhaps he should provide a better alternative and condemn the out-of-control party scene. Can anyone seriously wonder why the University is saddled with a party school reputation when the Chancellor himself gives his public approval to the “spirited” fun.

During last year’s IV Halloween bash, the Chancellor and some of his staff again attended the IV Halloween scene party. Here are some quotes as published in the Nexus [http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2004/8229.html] from the UCSB Administration about their wee field trip to party central – IV:

“Professor Walter Yuen, chair of the Santa Barbara divisional of the Academic Senate and chair of the I.V. Action Group, toured Isla Vista during Halloween for his first time last night. Yuen toured Del Playa beginning at 11 p.m. with several administrators, including Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Michael Young and Dean of Students Yonnie Harris.”

“I’m a little bit shocked,” Yuen said. “I think even though people are out having a good time, the risks are so high. I’m just concerned for the safety of our students.”

Professor Yuen should be complimented for his insightful comments on his first visit to the party scene – clearly what he saw shook him up a bit.

The other administrators present, all long-time observers of the spirited fun, took the standard wink-and-a-nod, tongue clucking, isn’t-it-all-too-cute approach.

Dean Harris said some of the costumes she saw were, “… clever, and some of them made me think some people were very cold.”

Vice Chancellor Young, also along for the joy ride, said, “I’m still not happy with outsiders coming to our community to party and trash it and then leave,”

Young’s comments were clearly meant to imply that the vast majority of the partygoers who are UCSB students were not responsible for the carnage. His comments attempt to shunt blame to the mythical they. But just look at the average Friday night IV party attended by solely UCSB students and you will see what the party scene generates.

Caroline Buford, Associate Dean of Students, also walked with the group as they passed the field booking area set up by the Isla Vista Foot Patrol to handle the several hundred arrests that occur during the October festivities. As she passed the booking area, she commented, “The booking area always makes me sad. It’s a consequence of their [the students’] choices.”

Let’s put this in perspective. The Chancellor and his entourage attend the annual out-of-control Halloween bash, which is hosted primarily by UCSB students, SBCC students, and other UCSB hangers-on. They know that hundreds of young people, mostly 18 and 19-year-olds, will be arrested (to say nothing of those who are injured) because of the abuse of alcohol, drugs, fighting, sexual assaults and other forms of what the glitterati of UCSB euphemistically refer to as “spirited” behavior, and they claim that the students made poor choices. Yang, Young, Harris, and Buford made the poor choice – the students followed suit. Rather than join in and support the out-of-control IV party scene, they should have promoted and attended alternative (no drugs, booze, or violence) parties and condemned the IV party scene. They should publicly state that they would take action against the thugs and abusers who were are arrested – and then do so. Rather than merely sending notes home to mommy and daddy about their adult children’s criminal activity, UCSB should take effective action to suspend or expel violent people and criminals.

In case some readers would defend the Halloween bash as a one-off event, take a look at the normal weekend fair in IV as described by the Nexus. http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2001/796.html [plus jhb photo of frat house]

PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE –

WHAT IS UCSB DOING TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS?

Not only does UCSB take no effective action that would prevent problems such as the Halloween carnage, they even fail to take action after criminal behavior is known. A great case in point is how the University and the students have handled the matter of felony criminal charges against the AS President, Cervin Morris. The issue here is not Cervin Morris personally, but rather how UCSB handles violent or dangerous and potentially dangerous students. In May of 2003, when Cervin was 19 years old, he was arrested for drunk driving. He pleaded guilty to Section 23103 of the California Vehicle code that states:

“23103. (a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving reckless driving.”

In November of 2004 Cervin, who was then 20 years old, was arrested and has been charged with:

* (Count One) a felony violation of Penal Code Section 245(a)(1), Assault with Personal Use of Deadly Weapon on Martin Yerbic with a glass bottle (a serious felony per Penal Code Section 1192.7(c)(31), with the Special Allegation that he personally inflicted Great Bodily Injury on Martin Yerbic within the meaning of Penal Code Section 1192.7(a)(also a serious felony per Penal Code Section 1192.7(c)(8).
* (Count Two) a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code Section 242, Battery on Steven William Pacatte. It has been alleged that he had been drinking.

Is there a simple pattern here – drunk and reckless, drunk and violent? And this is from the Associated Students President!

As of today, the history of charges against Morris (that are known) within the past 20 months is:

* Reckless driving while under the influence of alcohol
* Violation of parole
* Felony assault
* Misdemeanor assault.

It should be noted that Morris pleaded guilty in the 2003 case. The other three charges have not yet been adjudicated. Morris should be considered innocent until proven guilty; however, a quick reading of Morris’ comments in the Nexus [http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2004/8370.html] would lead one to believe that he has publicly admitted his actions.

To date, neither UCSB nor any currently enrolled student has made even a single public call for him to resign as AS President let alone be suspended or expelled from UCSB. Why?

UCSB has a long history of inaction. In her June 16, 2001 article in the Santa Barbara News Press entitled Isla Vista - Has Something Gone Seriously Wrong In This College Town? [http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2bc8ad5a5c.htm], Dawn Hobbs clearly lays out the administrations neglect in dealing with violence. The article reads in part,

“The torture and sexual assault of a UCSB freshman -- captured on videotape and shown during parties in Isla Vista -- has left much of the community stunned and disgusted at the behavior of the attackers and the witnesses.

And, as the case unfolds with arrests and arraignments, the main question seems to be: Why didn't any of the 30 or more partyers who witnessed the September attack come forward until last week?

The torture incident comes on the heels of several high-profile crimes and incidents in Isla Vista this school year, which ends with graduation ceremonies this weekend.

There's been a recent spate of assaults, the deaths of two drunken students who stumbled off the cliffs, and the tragic death of four young people in February when UCSB student David Attias allegedly plowed his speeding car into a crowd. A videotape taken immediately after the wreck shows Attias bursting out onto the street, where witnesses say he claimed to be the ‘Angel of Death.’

Vice Chancellor Young balked at the idea of immediate expulsion for students who have a certain number of drunk-in-public arrests -- even though statistics show 865 such arrests were made last year and that a majority of crimes committed in Isla Vista, from couch burnings to sexual assault, are alcohol-related.

‘We don't have the authority to respond to certain kinds of actions that take place outside the boundaries of campus,’ Mr. Young said.

But that's not what University of California system officials say. A spokeswoman from the UC system president's office says academic repercussions for student behaviors are determined by the chancellor of each university.”

Four years ago Vice Chancellor Young (who does not support the concept of extended jurisdiction) either did not know how to respond or he did not want to take action (that might highlight problems and give UCSB a black eye). Here we are a few years later with over half dozen deaths since then, over 100 sexual assaults, and literally hundreds of violent assaults and here is how the administration responded to the arrest, on felony charges, of the president of the AS:

In a Nexus article [http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2004/8515.html] dated December 2, 2004, Dean Yonnie Harris declined to comment on the Morris case, but she said she denied any ethical vacillation on the part of the university:

"We in UCSB Student Affairs hold to high standards and hold our students to our standards," Harris said. "Our motto is 'scholarship, citizenship and leadership.' I think there's a growing emphasis on ethical behavior. This is a campus where we do care. The entire campus wants to produce good scholars, good citizens and good leaders."

Chancellor Yang said he couldn't comment on the circumstances of any individual student, but added, "We can say that criminal behavior of any kind is a violation of our Code of Student Conduct and is taken very seriously. The Code of Student Conduct is enforced by the Office of Student Life."

Dean Yonnie Harris, Dean of Students, declined to comment on the possibility of a conduct hearing for Morris. "We operate off of a set of regulations," Harris said. "We don't have those designations of misdemeanor or felony."

What? The Office of Student Life doesn’t even differentiate between felonies and misdemeanors? The Chancellor says that any criminal behavior is a violation of the Code of Student Conduct, and yet, they do not even schedule a hearing? UCSB’s failure to use its power to exclude violent, dangerous or destructive students places the good people of the UCSB community in danger.

UCSB acts like every new criminal case they hear about is the first one. They don’t even bother to classify felonies from misdemeanors. Why? Because they don’t take action in either event unless forced to do so. They merely downplay the problem and hope it goes away. If the civil authorities ultimately (sometimes years after the initial crime and probably after subsequent crimes have been committed, as in the case of Morris) lock up the perpetrator, UCSB doesn’t have to take action – the criminal is in jail – out of sight, and out of mind.

In the case of David Attias, he had many problems before he ran down and killed four people – there were lots of red flags. Many within the UCSB community knew of David Attias’ abuse of drugs and his violent episodes. Not one student demanded action nor did UCSB take any action against Attias before he killed four people. The only actions his fellow students took was to do drugs with him and to label him with the prophetically sad sobriquet of “Crazy Dave.” His drug abuse, bizarre behavior and violent outbursts were well known before he killed four people. Attias had a history of serious mental illness before being admitted to UCSB.

The 18-year-old Attias was charged in the Feb. 23 traffic incident, which occurred on Sabado Tarde Road in Isla Vista and left four people dead and one seriously injured. Attias was accused of driving a 1991 Saab at approximately 50 mph after running a stop sign at the intersection of Sabado Tarde and Camino Pescadero and hitting Nicholas Bourdakis, Christopher Divis, Elie Israel, Albert Levy and Ruth Levy. Albert Levy was seriously injured, the other victims died.

Read more about how UCSB students view drug abuse:

http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2002/2879.html

http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2002/2938.html

http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2002/3077.html

http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2002/3188.html

http://www.dailynexus.com/news/2002/3028.html

As horrific an event as the Attias matter was and even after the death of four people, to make sure that the UCSB’s reputation wasn’t tarnished, the Nexus took exception to Attias’ defense attorney’s description of what had happened to make his client behave as he did. You see, it is important for the Kool-Aid-drinkers at UCSB to make sure that the University’s reputation, fallacious as it may be, is kept spotless.

In what can only be described as a pathetically self-exculpatory and sophomoric editorial, the Nexus Staff Editorial: [http://www.dailynexus.com/opinion/2002/2960.html] was outraged about how IV was being portrayed by Attias’ defense attorneys. Never mind the deaths of four young people, the serious injury to a fifth, and, of course, the additional problems that David Attias was facing – just defend the cesspool. It reads in part:

“To defend their client, Attias’ lawyers are dragging our town’s name through the mud. They’ve said the only reason Attias talked about or did any drugs was to fit in. They’ve said I.V. - filled with burning couches, keg beer and whatnot - pushed an unstable man over the edge. They’ve said if the people walking down the street weren’t drunk, they wouldn’t have been hit by cars.”

The mavens of the editorial staff in May 1, 2001, were indignant about bringing up partying, drugs, burning couches, and keggers since such activity puts their town in a bad light. Of course, they failed to mention that all of those events are regular occurrences within the bucolic burg of Isla Vista.

The Attias case and the arrest of the AS President for felony assault highlight exactly how the permissive culture at UCSB set the stage for disasters. Moreover, both cases show how a permissive moral relativism attitude colors the administration and faculty and permeates students – an attitude that facilitates disasters.

In a rare lapse into candor, or perhaps the start of a campaign for additional funding for UCSB Medical facilities (at UCSB, it can be difficult to distinguish between the two), Dr. Cynthia Bowers, director of UCSB Student Health Services, admitted that there is a crisis at UCSB. A Santa Barbara News Press article entitled “Mental Health Woes Multiply At UCSB” dated December 12, 2004, contains these observations:

“… Dr. Cynthia Bowers, director of UCSB Student Health Services, calls it "an epidemic."

“During a recent 10-day period, she said, four students were involuntarily committed to medical facilities in the community. And hundreds more are receiving treatment or counseling on campus.”

“they (UCSB) also are launching new efforts to reach more students ‘before they do damage to themselves or somebody else,’ Dr. Bowers said.”

“In fact, the number of students who have sought mental health care on campus, ‘is just the tip of the iceberg.’”

Even when UCSB admits to crisis conditions extant at UCSB they carefully parse their comments. A careful read of the entire article shows that the good doctor never even mentions drugs, booze, partying (sleep depravation), STDs, violence, sexual assaults, rape, or unwanted pregnancies as contributing to the crisis. She points to the families not preparing their children for the stress of college life. Even a casual observer of the health and crime problems at UCSB would see the hypocrisy here.

CONCLUSION

There are solutions to the crisis at UCSB. The problem is that UCSB has an administration that spends huge amounts of money touting its Noble prizewinners and next to nothing on protecting students. It bloviates about all the programs it starts and provides reams of website pages filled with platitudinous statements. But it doesn’t take effective action. The majority of university security resources go to addressing the adverse effects of crime, drug and alcohol abuse, and violence rather than eliminating the root causes.

One law enforcement official suggested that, in addition to any criminal penalties levied, if UCSB would enforce a simple set of punishments, the crime rate would drop by about half. Here are simple (call them simplistic if you must) recommendations to deal with some of the problems at UCSB:

Alcohol Violations:

* First offense – mandatory counseling paid for by the student
* Second offence – suspension from the University for one quarter; completion of additional counseling paid for by the student before re-entry is granted
* Third offense – expulsion from UCSB

Drug Violations (misdemeanors):

* First offense – mandatory counseling paid for by the student
* Second offence – expulsion from UCSB

Sale of Drugs:

* Expulsion from UCSB

Commission of a misdemeanor involving an assault:

* First offense – mandatory counseling paid for by the student
* Second offense – expulsion from UCSB

Commission of a felony:

* Expulsion from UCSB

By instituting, repetitively pronouncing, and enforcing such mandatory punishments, the University would firmly place itself in opposition to the kind of behavior that so adversely affects the greater student body and the reputation of this fine school. The miscreant students who involve themselves in such behavior would finally learn that their “bad choices” actually have consequences. Come to think of it, that in itself would be a life lesson worth imparting to any college aged adult.

If you have suggestions about how to reduce sexual assaults and violent crimes at UCSB, visit our Solutions page and add your comments.