Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

Category: Ethics

  • Coalition of faculty unions prevails against Trump’s attacks on the UC

    UC administration is still laying low and not joining the fight

    By Roberta Millstein

    This is just meant to be a quick follow up to my earlier article, “Trump’s Attacks on the University of California (and higher education more generally).” On Friday, the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs in AAUP v. Trump, including the Davis Faculty Association, a preliminary injunction. By temporary court order, the federal government is prohibited from holding federal funds hostage in an effort to coerce the University of California into imposing policies that would violate our First Amendment rights.

    The judge’s decision is a rebuke of the “Demand letter” I wrote about in the earlier article (and I believe its arguments would likewise apply to the “Compact” that has been presented to other U.S. universities).  Judge Rita Lin writes:

    Plaintiffs have submitted overwhelming evidence. Across 74 declarations and more than 700 pages of supporting documents, Plaintiffs show that the Administration and its executive agencies are engaged in a concerted campaign to purge “woke,” “left,” and “socialist” viewpoints from our country’s leading universities. Agency officials, as well as the President and Vice President, have repeatedly and publicly announced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding, with the goal of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune. Universities are then presented with agreements to restore federal funding under which they must change what they teach, restrict student anonymity in protests, and endorse the Administration’s view of gender, among other things. Defendants submit nothing to refute this.

    In her article on the decision, Davis Enterprise journalist Monica Stark helpfully explains that the order will stay in place until all of the required procedures under Title VI and Title IX are followed — in other words, the procedures that the Trump administration should have followed instead of simply declaring guilt and trying to impose an outrageous $1.2B fine with illegal conditions.  (See Stark’s article or the judge’s order for the list of required procedures).  The Trump administration’s conditions included, the judge states, “conditions on continued federal funding that impermissibly burden their First Amendment rights” (p. 74).

    Judge Lin offered examples of conditions on the granting or continuance of federal funding that would violate the First Amendment rights of Plaintiffs’ members (meaning that the Trump administration is prohibited from doing the following):

    (more…)

  • Yolo County: It’s time to Fix or Nix the Cache Creek Parkway Plan

    Recent Google Earth photo of the 1,900 acre Cemex mining complex located one mile north of Madison and seven miles west of Woodland.

    By Juliette Beck

    In the early morning hours on July 4, 2025 as young campers were resting from their busy day at Camp Mystic, catastrophic floodwaters from Guadalupe Creek in the Texas Hill Country rose to a level that was deemed unimaginable. No parent would have ever knowingly put their children in harm’s way. They trusted their government — local planning departments – to do their jobs to protect public health and safety.

    This week, the Yolo County Planning Commission is considering a plan to extend deep pit gravel mining across more than 500 acres of the floodplain along Cache Creek. The county has hitched Cache Creek’s future to a long-term plan that involves the exchange of permits to mine aggregate deep into the aquifer in exchange for net gain “gifts” of land for a proposed 14-mile recreational parkway. However, this stretch of Cache Creek is a FEMA -designated floodway – designated to carry floodwaters to protect downstream communities, including the town of Woodland. Is it prudent to knowingly put birders, dog walkers, and recreational visitors in harm’s way?

    Yolo County staff are already in the hot seat — under investigation — for their lax code enforcement that led to the deadly July 2 fireworks explosion in Esparto. The staff report recommending approval of the permit application filed by CEMEX – an $18 billion global cement company – is full of assurances, Yet are these plans really climate proof?

    (more…)

  • Trump’s Attacks on the University of California (and higher education more generally)

    By Roberta Millstein

    With so many people in Davis affiliated in some way or another with UC Davis, I thought it might be helpful to try to highlight the two fronts on which the University of California is under attack by the federal government, because it is easy to get lost and confused in the details.  And before I get into some of those details, you may wish to sign up at Stand for UC (open to anyone) for more information and ways to get involved. 

    Also, I want to call attention to this helpful webpage from the UCSD Faculty Association, which contains a statement calling on the UC Regents and UC President James Milliken to publicly reject Trump’s demands and has links to many relevant resources.  I’m drawing heavily on their work in this article.

    The two points of attack are:  1) the “Demand” letter that the administration sent to UCLA back in August and 2) the “Compact” letter that the administration sent to 9 schools in early October, later broadening its “offer” to all U.S. colleges and universities.  I had originally hoped to discuss both in one article, but just explaining the first of these took a lot of words, so I will try to discuss the “Compact” in a future article.

    The “Demand” letter seeks a $1.2 Billion “settlement” from UCLA for allegations of civil rights violations related to antisemitism and affirmative action.  Now, whatever one thinks of the way UCLA has handled things such as the pro-Palestine protests of last year — and I have my concerns — that amount of money is more than the UC system can absorb without serious damage. Governor Newsom accurately called it “extortion” [1]; President Milliken said it would “devastate UC and inflict real, long-term harm on our students, our faculty and staff, our patients, and all Californians.” 

    Importantly, this Demand letter has only recently become public (as of October 24).  The UCLA Faculty Association and the Council of University of California Faculty Associations had to file a lawsuit against the UC administration (yes, you are reading that correctly), who had refused to release the details of the letter.  The UC released the information after a California superior court judge ordered it to do so and the state Supreme Court rejected its appeal (see Monica Stark’s article in the Davis Enterprise for details of the Superior Court’s ruling).

    In addition to the monetary demand, the letter makes demands on UCLA that go well beyond addressing the alleged problems.  According to the SF Chronicle, the demands would require UCLA to (and this is not a complete list):

    (more…)

  • Improving Davis’ Inclusiveness & safety

    “Don’t think of a hateful elephant.“

    By Alan Hirsch

    “Love is the only force powerful enough to turn an enemy into a friend” M.L. King Jr.

    Next week, the Davis Hate Free Together program will hold an all-day strategic summit to evaluate its progress and plan its future direction. This collaborative effort—originating from the City of Davis, UC Davis, and Yolo County—was initially created to address bigotry and prejudice toward individuals based on identity (e.g., being gay, Black, Hispanic, or Jewish).

    However, the program now needs to evolve beyond addressing individual prejudice and begin tackling the deeper and more complex challenge of intergroup conflict.

    UC Davis is currently under intense pressure from the Trump administration to dismantle its diversity programs and respond to what has been labeled an “epidemic of hate” focused on one group: Jews. This new directive highlights the limitations—and potential harms—of the Hate Free Together framing. Not only may it be ineffective, but it might also worsen group conflict.

    More fundamentally, the “Hate Free” framework contradicts well-established findings in cognitive science about how the human mind works. If I tell you, “Don’t think of an elephant,” you will, of course, think of an elephant. Similarly, if a government tells people, “Don’t hate those other people,” the instruction may backfire. Talking about the Holocaust has not ended antisemitism.

    The program also treats hate, prejudice, and bigotry as if they were medical conditions, rather than social or psychological phenomena. But tribalism is something all humans are susceptible to, especially under certain environmental and cultural pressures.

    The choice of this “don’t think about hate” framing was likely unintentional. The Hate Free Together branding emerged in 2022, created by a PR team just coming off the Healthy Davis Together COVID testing initiative. Indeed, the hatefreetogether.org website describes hate as a virus, setting a goal of “total eradication”—implying the program will functions like a vaccine.

    But when hate exists at the group level, this disease/victim metaphor sets the stage for a dangerous contest: Who will be politically defined as the viral “haters,” and who as the innocent “victims”? This dynamic incentivizes groups to highlight their own trauma and victimhood while blaming others—rather than accepting responsibility for working to a safe, welcoming, and pluralistic community. There is even an incentive to traumatize your own people: stoking fear is a well-known political tool.   This is not ‘victim’ blaming (again who is the victim?) but suggests the tactics “victims” choose count.

    (more…)

  • A Lawsuit Waiting to Happen

    By Elaine Roberts Musser

    There was a pretty lively discussion that transpired on social media recently. Many citizens in this town don’t understand why Village Homes is getting a complete pavement makeover, while arterials are going to pot(holes).  Some suspicion was expressed that there may be political leverage involved in the decision making.  Neither do voters understand why their streets are so riddled with alligator cracks, fissures and pits, while the current City Council seems relatively unconcerned about maintaining basic city infrastructure. This is especially true when a recently approved sales tax hike was supposed to help solve the pavement problem. In fact, someone was concerned enough to reach out to both the City and the City Council for an explanation. The City finally responded.

    However, the reply seemed contradictory.  The City’s representative justified prioritizing repairing Village Homes inner streets over major arterials by saying: “Most of the streets in Village Homes are in failed condition”.  Yet later in their explanation the City made the following contrary statement: “Pavement preservation—proactive maintenance of roads in fair or good condition—helps extend pavement life and maximize the value of each dollar spent. This is why some streets may receive treatment even if they appear to be in better shape than others.” 

    The city can’t have it both ways, especially when it comes to fixing very small neighborhood streets in poor condition, at the expense of not repairing main thoroughfares in fair condition. First, considerably more citizens in this town use the thoroughfares than tiny side streets.  And secondly, those major arteries are fast deteriorating from fair condition, and are a good portion of the way to degrading to poor condition.

    As it turns out, a case was just handed down in May of this year from the California Supreme Court, which gives a harsh lesson to cities allowing their roads to unacceptably worsen. In a 7- 0 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff could sue the City of Oakland for serious injuries sustained as a result of bicycling on crumbled or cracked pavement. It said the City was obligated to “maintain its streets in a reasonably safe condition for travel by the public”. In a statement announcing the $7 million settlement in favor of the plaintiff, the attorney representing the injured party indicated the court’s ruling sent a clear message to California cities that “safe streets are not optional”.

    (more…)

  • Re-sponse-buttal to post “Antisemitism and Trump Defunding UC”

    Jews-are-concerned-about-anti-jew-hatred-but-the-arti (1)

    The primary message of the recent blog essay "Antisemitism and Trump Defunding UC" portends to be anti-Jew bigotry (some call it ‘antisemitism’), but the essay quickly dilutes the subject by layering it beneath crushing layers of unrelated progressive causes. The result is that the central issue, real and rising hostility toward Jews, gets blurred into a cacophony of left-leaning background noise.

    Omissions are glaringly obvious. There is no mention of Hamas, no recognition of the ongoing subtle-yet-very-real ‘not-quite-welcome’ that many Jewish students endure on campuses, and of course no reference to the illegal and disgusting demonstration of May 2nd, 2025 where 100%-masked persons shouted with a bullhorn inside the UCD Coffehouse: “We don’t want no two state, we want all the ’48,” an explicit call to end Israel’s existence. Is the subject really anti-Jew bigotry or is the author, like Gary May, hoping such glaringly anti-Jew events are normalized by pretending they didn’t happen?

    The assertion that “Jews do best in pluralistic democracies” is presented without evidence. Ask French Jews emigrating to Israel, or British Jews living under constant security advisories, how well pluralism protects them. History shows that even the most tolerant societies can turn hostile with remarkable speed. To present pluralism as a guarantee of Jewish flourishing is not analysis, it is wishful thinking. The cherry on top of the wishing-thinking sundae is the author’s:

    “We affirm that as Jews we support diversity and the right to freedom of inquiry and dissent, as we ourselves so long dissented in Christian and Muslim religious-majority-societies where we have lived.”

    Um . . . first of all, Jews are losing this ideal in places like Davis and UC Davis (unless they disavow Israel as a country). Second, Jews not only dissented in Christian and Muslim religious-majority-societies, they were all-too-often killed or expelled from them. Since October 7th, I’ve been in a deep-dive into Jewish history. The number of events in which Jews are killed in 4, 5, even six-figure-mortality events is staggering.

    The idea that anti-Jew hatred must always be fought “along with” other forms of intolerance sounds noble, but in practice it often ensures Jewish issues are sidelined. Jewish concerns are routinely diluted into broader coalitions that rarely prioritize them. That is not solidarity, it is avoidance dressed in moral language. And DEI is a Jew’s worst enemy, as we are classified simultaneously as victims and oppressors by the bigots, for whatever best fits the Jew-hating narrative.

    Jews-are-concerned-about-anti-jew-hatred-but-the-arti

    The “Project Esther” section undercuts the seriousness of the topic with a forced biblical pun and seems more about anti-Trump sentiment than concern for the Jewish Community. Equating Trump with Ahasuerus, reduced to a “fickle ruler swayed by a pretty girl,” trivializes the discussion. Assigning blame to Christians for drafting the plan while dismissing Jewish voices that support it avoids the real question – and that question is, “do Jews face immediate and escalating threats today?”. The evidence is clear that anti-Jew bigotry, racism, and hatred are proliferating online, on campuses, and in street protests. None of that is being driven by strategy memos in Washington.

    As evidence for the online hate, check out the growing and ever-emboldened anti-Jew bigots on YouTube: Rathbone deBuys, Jen Perelman, Peter Hager, Katie Halper, Rania Khalek, Krystal Ball, Kyle Kulinski, Sam Seder, Abby Martin, Norm Finklestein, Cenk Yunger, Ana Kasparian, Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Kim Iversen, Amy Goodman, Max Blumenthal and many, many more. A lot of these YouTuber media personalities are Jews themselves — antizionist Jews. They spew hate like daggers from their eyes, yet couch the hate in the concept of ‘antizionism’, as if that is an excuse, and bath themselves in their own self-deluded superior morality.

    There was virtually none of this vitriol – even from a good number of these same personalities – until October 7th, 2023. But even if they hide behind ‘antizionism’, one need only look at the comment sections of their YouTube vids: hundreds to thousands of Jew-hating comments, most not even trying to hide behind antizionism. Where any of these people decent human beings, each would condemn the haters in their own comment sections — but they are all silent.

    With the backdrop of this ever-increasing sea of anti-Jew bigotry, presenting this serious subject in an essay splattered with liberal causes that many people — including many Jews — would agree with — only dilutes the seriousness of anti-Jew rhetoric that the real Jewish Community knows is being baked ever-deeper into the American psyche. And as a participant, you don’t even know it’s happening within you.

    This is how it starts.

    Jews-are-concerned-about-anti-jew-hatred-but-the-arti (2)

  • Supporting Sensible Security at the Davis Food Co-op (Counter Petition – sign it!)

    COOP CopRoberta Millstein is correct that the COOP should have timely sent an email, perhaps with the text from the sign out in front of the store (see below). 

    However, the text with the petition calling to remove the guards drifts into anti-cop and demilitarization rhetoric that is far-far-left even for the average COOP shopper.  The statement "Security personnel in military-style equipment . . . creates the perception of shopping as a criminal act and makes the store feel like a space under occupation." is extreme. 

    Below is link to a counter-petition, thanking COOP management for their leadership on this matter.  Importantly, this petition refers to the guard as a guard (not a militarized occupation), this petition makes no list of demands, and this petition makes no threat of a boycott.  Choose the petition that fits your thoughts/opinion and sign one of them.  The link to the text and to sign the petition are here:

    https://chng.it/jMmWXHDtdh

    ENHANCED SECURITY MEASURES
    AT THE DAVIS FOOD CO-OP

    As many of you have noticed, the retail environment has changed significantly in the past year. Several staff members have expressed concern about safety and the increase in theft incidents in the store. Management has stepped up to become mitigators and although we are grateful for their leadership, it is not sustainable and our priority is safety. Many Members have also expressed their concerns about the changing environment. The overall sentiment is that the Co-op is losing its welcoming and safe atmosphere.

    We have done our best to mitigate the increased activity, however, it is becoming a bigger task than we have capacity and at times, training for.
    Therefore, after careful consideration, a third-party security company will be engaged to enhance the safety and security of staff, customers, and assets.

    This change may feel different to some members who may not be aware of the situations that have been discreetly addressed. However, this partnership will help create a more secure environment for everyone.

    The selected company is highly recommended by Sacramento Natural Foods Co-op. Additionally, the owner is a member of SNFC and is committed to incorporating the Davis Food Co-op's policies and values into how their team will engage with the community and handle situations involving theft or disturbances.

    This measure is essential to ensure that the Co-op remains a safe and welcoming space for all members, staff, and shoppers. We appreciate your understanding and support as this important change is implemented.

    Cooperatively,
    Laura Sanchez, General Manager

  • Petition to end the security guards at the Davis Food Co-op

    By Roberta Millstein

    The Davis Food Co-op now has security guards. 

    How those security guards are dressed and armed and why they are there is the subject of some dispute — anyone interested in the variety of opinions on this subject can read the hundreds of comments I accidentally generated when I shared a picture of some sidewalk chalk concerning the guards (the first I had heard of it) on NextDoor.  There you can also read a variety of opinions about whether the guards are a good idea or not, count the number of reactions, etc.  Let's just say it was a classic NextDoor post.  Trying to look at the positives, it at least provided a platform for people to share their opinions and impressions.

    But that is not the point of this post.  The point of this post is to share a petition about the security guards, located here: https://www.change.org/p/end-the-militarized-security-presence-at-our-davis-food-co-op.  I have no involvement in creation of the petition, but whoever wrote it did a beautiful job.  It is well-written and thoughtful.

    I have signed, and I urge others to sign as well. Importantly, the petition not only calls for eliminating the security guards (and explains why) but also calls for the Management and Board of Directors of the Co-op to work creatively with the community — as member-owners of the Co-op — to find alternatives to deal with the recent challenges that the Co-op has had. 

    It is, after all, supposed to be a Co-op and not a just another business, just another grocery store.

    One thing that quickly became clear is how badly the Co-op bungled this.  At a minimum, it should have used its email newsletter to let people know about the problems and how they were thinking of handling them.  That would have saved a lot of fear, anger, and frustration on all sides. In fact, they still haven't sent out an email like this, instead putting up a sandwich board in front of the entrance with a relatively brief explanation.

    Davis Food Co-op, let's work together.  Community, let's urge them to do so.  Again, the petition is here.

  • County Board of Supervisors Prepares to Protect Local Groundwater

    Groundwaterissue

    By Scott Steward

    It will take a 4/5ths vote by the County Board of Supervisors this Tuesday, August 26th, to implement a much-needed well moratorium for the north and west Yolo regions, where ground water replacement rates are declining, are not well understood, and where previously unirrigated land is being converted to year-round water demand: grape vines, olive, and nut trees

    The County Staff report, supporting the 45-day moratorium, provides the following excerpt: 

    " To summarize, groundwater is a vital resource essential to the health, safety and welfare of the many communities and agricultural areas in the County. Therefore, it is necessary to better understand the impacts of land use changes on groundwater supplies and gather additional information to better inform better YSGA and County evaluation of proposed new agricultural wells with an eye towards protecting the sustainability of groundwater resources.  Further study of the impacts of the planting of perennial crops on previously non-irrigated lands is critical to determine if further regulations should be implemented with respect to such land use changes to protect against unsustainable groundwater impacts."

    Communications with the two Supervisors in District 2 and District 4 (Lucas Frerichs and Sheila Allen), who represent large numbers of Davis residents, indicate strong support for the 45-day moratorium.

    (more…)

  • Tree Budget Cuts have made Parks, Bikeways Streets and Front yards less safe

    Failed Roots City Council Chamber Pear (1)By Alan ‘Lorax” Hirsch

    Tuesday item 7 before council is the first public discussion about the up-to-now hidden part of city structural deficit; the underfunding of tree pruning/sustainability program. This underfunding has not only made our parks, bikeways and streets less safe, but also added to our structural deficit by ballooning city’s insurance premiums. This is on top of our city’s financial deficit issues that Elaine Roberts Musser and Dan Carlson have written about so elegantly on this blog and elsewhere.

    +++

    What if your long time HMO revealed they had- without your knowledge – reduced the dose of your heart medication by 50% to cut costs- and done this secretly for over 12 years.

    That is what the city’s memo on Trees for Tuesday 8/19 council packet revealed; they state instead of a 7-year safety pruning cycle for front yard street and park tree they had in fact a longer a 12–14-year cycle.

    This is consistent with fact a woman died in Slide Hill Park in 2021 by a tree the city had neglected to inspect and prune. The city staff knew this funding shortfall for years (the previous Arbor would tell anyone) but this fact only seems to have been admitted to the public by staff and council now the previous city manager has moved on.

    But this mis where we are now: think of the embarrassment if HMO disclose an increased cost of malpractice insurance now exceed the saving from those medicine dosage cuts?  In city’s case, its liability insurance increase– due to the $24 million dollar Slide Hill Park tree death settlement.

    But this is part of a larger picture about the strategic mismanagement of the city tree program, as I will describe below.

    (more…)