UCSB Administration Fails to Take Action, Again

March 15, 2005

While the administration talks the talk about cleaning up the UCSB party school image and reducing violence, they don't walk the walk.  While they excel at announcing programs and wasting money on initiatives that they claim are intended to reduce assaults and curtail alcohol and drug abuse, the administration remains, mostly because of their fear of being criticized for being judgmental, ineffective at making a meaningful dent in the UCSB party school image.  On the one hand, they spend millions to buy Nobel Prize winners in an attempt to enhance the school's prestige, and on the other hand, they allow a persistent party image and reputation for violence to drag the university's image down. 

The voting in our current poll, Should Cervin Morris Resign?, clearly indicates that a majority of the visitors to the Dark Side of UCSB (many of whom vehemently disagree with our positions) believe that Cervin's conduct is unacceptable for the president of the AS.  Many people still believe that Cervin’s conduct, which reflects poorly upon the university, should have been addressed – apparently, the administration of UCSB does not.  At the time this editorial was written, over 800 people had already voted in our poll.  (Almost 20 percent of the over 4,500 visitors to our site in February voted – thank you!)  Is there any wonder why UCSB has the image it does when the president of the AS is on parole for one serious offense, violates his parole and is arrested for a felony and a misdemeanor assault and the administration does nothing? 

The matter at hand is not Cervin’s conduct.  We certainly wish him no ill and hope that he will be able to get his life back on track.  Cervin's conduct is merely representative of literally hundreds of UCSB students who sell or abuse drugs, commit acts of violence including sexual assaults, and yet still remain in school without any penalty because the administration fails to enforce its stated policies.  The matter at hand is how the administration deals with its party school image, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual assaults, and violence.  The issue is how the administration deals with situations that represent a continuing threat to the safety of the student community and the reputation of the school.  

In our November 16, 2005, editorial, which was written four days after Cervin was arrested, we called for Morris’ resignation.  We also said, "What is more interesting than Morris' arrest is the way in which Morris and the UC community will respond to the arrest."  After four months and two school quarters have passed, we can now view exactly how the administration of UCSB is handling the Morris matter.  

Before we examine the administration’s actions, it might be instructive to review some of the written regulations and policies promulgated by UCSB.  According to UCSB's

Comprehensive Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Prevention Program policy:

"Campus conduct jurisdiction extends to any off-campus location for violence, threats of violence, stalking, hazing and sexual harassment."  

The Code of Student Conduct that governs the conduct of UCSB students clearly states when the administration should act.  It reads, in part:

"General Standards of Conduct (SW, 101.00)

1. Non-Academic Conduct

Students are expected to comply with all local, state, and federal laws.

The Regents of the University of California have delegated authority to the Chancellors to implement processes for the administration of discipline on the campuses. The procedures to be followed at UCSB are outlined below."

Section C states:

"In instances when the health and safety of the individual or members of the University community are involved, the campus disciplinary process will be implemented immediately upon notification of the charges."

The school knew about Cervin's arrest, his probation status and his prior conviction.  Cervin was arrested in 2003 for drunk driving and pleaded guilty to reckless driving.  He was under 21 at the time of this arrest.  He was on probation, and still under 21, when he was arrested for one misdemeanor count of battery and one felony count of assault with a weapon with intent to do great bodily harm.  Since the administration has taken no action to date, it can be assumed that the leadership (student, staff, faculty and administration) of UCSB does not consider multiple arrests for reckless driving, driving under the influence, misdemeanor assault, and felony assault within an 18-month period to pose any threat to the UCSB community.  Unfortunately, there are dozens of other UCSB students with similar records of violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and sexual assaults that the university has failed to take action against. 

The university has the power and the responsibility to act.  They certainly know about the Morris matter.  In the December 2, 2004, Nexus, it was reported that Dean 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." 

The Nexus also reported that Harris declined to comment on the possibility of a conduct hearing for Morris but quoted Harris as saying, "We operate off of a set of regulations.  We don't have those designations of misdemeanor or felony."

We would agree with Dean Harris that there hasn't been any vacillation on enforcement – there hasn't been any enforce to vacillate about.  We also find that her comments regarding not having designations of misdemeanors or felonies to be symptomatic of the "non-judgmental" policy that tolerates the culture of violence and crime at UCSB.  Perhaps, along with military recruiters, the administration should be banned from campus for their use of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to the criminal behavior of its students. 

In the same Nexus article Chancellor Yang said he could not comment on the circumstances of any individual student.  "We can say that criminal behavior of any kind is a violation of our Code of Student Conduct and is taken very seriously," Yang said.  "The Code of Student Conduct is enforced by the Office of Student Life."

While Chancellor Yang may pontificate about taking criminal behavior seriously, it should be noted that he has taken no action in the Morris case and in hundreds of other cases of criminal acts committed by UCSB students.  He takes no effective action to stop young and sometimes naïve people from hurting themselves and others.  He merely mumbles, in what can only be described as pathetically politically correct patios, about students who make bad choices.  

He could stop a great deal of the harmful excesses found at UCSB without grandiose plans or the creation of new programs and without the expenditure of money.  All he would need to do is show some leadership and institute a simple plan – enforce the rules, condemn the behavior, and suspend or expel students who violate the rules.  
 
To be perfectly candid, UCSB may to be taking some action regarding the Morris matter, albeit somewhat perverse – they may be quietly helping him beat the rap. Cervin and his lawyer are apparently attempting to obtain letters of recommendation from UCSB professors and staff.  These recommendations will be used in an attempt to induce the district attorney to reduce Cervin's felony assault charge to a misdemeanor.  

The remedies are available and UCSB has the jurisdiction.  What UCSB doesn't have is the will to take action.  What message does the university’s silence send?  The silence resounds with an insidious refrain: do whatever you want, squirm your way out of the consequences, and then do it again.