Former resident-advisors accuse student housing of systematic racism, lack of representation

Inspired by a senior’s thesis detailing her own experiences with Student Housing as a former Senior Resident Advisor, several former resident advisors have also come forward to express their dissatisfaction with Student Housing’s management and what they say is a culture that perpetuates fear among student staff members.

Angela Kim, a fourth-year gender, sexuality and women’s studies major, wrote her thesis around the personal narratives of former RAs’ encounters with racism and constant pressure from student housing coordinators. After serving as an RA for one year and an SRA for one year, Kim applied again to serve as an SRA for the current 2017-2018 school year, but was not rehired.

Although Kim worked to address issues of racism, which she believes specifically targeted women of color during the 2016-17 school year while she served as an SRA, her demands were not addressed by coordinators. Despite the fear of potentially not being rehired, in Spring 2017, Kim began gathering testimony from more than a dozen former RAs and former professional staff at Student Housing to support her claims.

Kim’s thesis focuses on the experiences of herself and her staff of seven people of color and one white RA — the most diverse staff of RAs that year. According to Kim, because of her staff’s vocalness regarding instances of inequality and lack of inclusivity, they earned a reputation of being “loud women of color,” a phrase that was conveyed to Kim by coordinators.

Neither Kim nor anyone from her staff were rehired for the following year. Among Kim’s staff were seven women of color, with one genderfluid individual, five individuals with disabilities, and four individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

Among the grievances of Kim and a group of former RAs is Student Housing’s alleged failure to effectively implement tools to combat white supremacy and practice their vocalized commitment to inclusivity and diversity.

RAs attend weekly diversity training meetings that are run by their senior resident advisors to promote inclusivity and ensure RAs are able to relate to residents who come from diverse backgrounds.

In one week’s activity, resident advisors were asked to role-play what it would be like to be gay and what they might expect from their own imagined coming-out experience. Kim vocalized her concerns to student housing about the insensitivity of this activity and how one of her staff members who didn’t identify as straight had felt extremely uncomfortable during the activity.

Instead of employing experts in different areas of social justice and advocacy, like the Women’s Resource and Research Center and Cross Cultural Center, senior RAs are trained to facilitate diversity workshops.

Branden Petitt, the director of Student Housing and Dining Services, provided responses to Kim and other RA’s allegations.

“There are multiple days during fall training dedicated to social justice, equity and inclusion topics,” Petitt said. “Additionally, professional staff work with the senior resident advisors on a weekly basis throughout the academic year to help ensure they are prepared to lead diversity discussions.”

Petitt also stated that in the fall of 2017, the LGBTQIA+ Resource Center did give a presentation to RAs during training.

Out of 12 rehired SRAs for the current 2017-18 school year, 9 are white. Kim claimed that a lack of racial diversity among SRAs made their role fostering social justice presentations with residents misplaced.

Kim’s statistics come from her own investigation and the statistics could not be corroborated by Petitt or staff at Student Housing.

As compensation for their time spent serving as resident advisors, RAs receive no formal paycheck. Instead, RAs are guaranteed free student housing in university dorms and a meal plan, but with attached stipulations.

One of the RAs serving on Kim’s staff was Sabrina Younes, a fourth-year political science and psychology double major. Younes claimed that the free swipes into the Dining Commons were part of the RA job requirement, not part of the benefits, because resident advisors were expected to use them “to interact with [their] staff and to get to know [their] residents.”

Beyond this, resident advisors depend on their employers to provide housing and food security, acting as both landlords and bosses. In this regard, Kim described being called “at-will” employees, who receive no workers rights or union representation.

“We are all essentially competing to guaranteed housing,” Kim said.

Kim characterizes the environment as highly-competitive, not only after being hired, but throughout the year, if RAs want to be rehired.

“This compensated housing has the power to force employees into complicity and passivity,” Kim said.

Moreover, Kim described Student Housing’s right to terminate RA positions and subsequently their access to housing and food security with minimal notice.

Former RA Addison Montgomery, a third-year nutrition major, was fired from her position during the beginning of Spring Quarter last year. From the time of her meeting on a Monday, Montgomery was expected to vacate the dormitories in the following week and a half.

“It’s very difficult to find housing at the beginning of Spring Quarter,” Montgomery said.

According to most leasing laws, landlords are required to give tenants 90 days notice before eviction and, in specific situations, a minimum notice of 30 days.

Receiving no student aid and suddenly faced with the possibility of both homelessness and housing insecurity, Montgomery had 9 days to secure a new full-time job and a new place to live. Because Student Housing doesn’t give resident advisors paychecks, Montgomery struggled to find places to live that didn’t require any immediate payment.

Fearing the possibility of homelessness, Montgomery addressed her fears with staff coordinators who, according to Montgomery, suggested she try couch-surfing for the remainder of the school year.

“I told her, ‘I have worker’s rights,’ and she said, ‘No you don’t,’” Montgomery said, referring to her meeting with an officer at Student Housing.

Petitt confirmed that resident advisors do not receive any representation or resources through Student Housing to address instances of injustice involving coordinators. Instead, Petitt described resources on campus that are available to all students.

“RAs can use any campus resources residents and other students use to protect them from unlawful practices,” Petitt said. “We welcome feedback from student staff and try to create spaces where they feel comfortable providing that feedback.”

In the past week, Kim has been able to secure a meeting with some Student Housing staff, including Petitt, to discuss her grievances and those of other former RAs.

At the meeting, Kim plans to put forward a list of demands to help improve the experiences of RAs.

Written by: Ally Russell — campus@theaggie.org

Assault with deadly weapon occurs outside Walter A. Buehler Alumni Center

On May 13, at around 1:30 a.m., UC Davis students and community members received a crime alert from the UC Davis Police Department regarding an assault with a deadly weapon on campus. The incident, which is described as a “physical altercation,” took place on May 12 at 11:46 p.m. in front of the Buehler Alumni Center.

“Suspects assaulted a victim and pointed a shotgun at victim(s),” the report stated. “Suspects fled the area after removing their long sleeve shirts and wore tank tops. Last seen in a late model, 2012-2017 red or burnt orange color Ford Mustang. Suspects were last seen westbound on Old Davis Road towards I-80.”

UCDPD has identified two suspects and arrested one. According to Andy Fell of UC Davis News and Media Relations, “the suspect had bailed out as of Monday afternoon and has a court date June 12. His name is Manwinder Jit Singh, age 20, of Sacramento. He is not a UC Davis student or employee.”

The report also stated that the “victim sustained facial injuries.”

Additional information about this incident or similar incidents should be given to UCDPD at 530-754-COPS (2677).

Written by: Hannah Holzer — campus@theaggie.org

Judicial Council adjusts unconstitutional bylaws

After the 2018 ASUCD Winter Elections, former Senator Andreas Godderis filed five Judicial Council complaints alleging voter fraud and accusing President Michael Gofman, Vice President Shaniah Branson and Unite members of violating ASUCD Bylaws 406(a)(c) and 406(A)(a)(i).

These bylaws state that a “violation of University and/or Student Housing Policy” includes “solicitation in residence halls and prohibited posting/distribution of campaign materials” and outlines the process for addressing voter intimidation and coercion. Witnesses within the filed complaints alleged that a Unite campaign staff member coerced votes for Unite candidates in Redwood Hall of the Tercero dormitories.

Officials who ran with the Unite slate in the Winter Elections and were elected to office include Gofman and Branson as well as Senators Atanas Spasov, Alisha Hacker and Brandon Clemons.

Fourth-year psychology and Spanish double major Becca Nelson, the former Gender and Sexuality Commission chair, attempted to initiate the process to recall an elected official after Godderis’ complaints were dismissed by the Judicial Council on the basis that all “complaints must be filed before the announcement of election results.”

The case Nelson v. ASUCD was filed with the Judicial Council; it challenges “the timeframe for which recall signature petitions can be released by Elections Committee.”

In light of the Judicial Council hearing held over this case, Nelson created a Facebook event page, asking students to attend the meeting to demand the right to an online recall petition.

“Elections Committee denied our right to petition for a recall of Michael Gofman and Shaniah Branson, along with other Unite! slate members complicit in election fraud,” the page stated. ”They are also denying an online petition and expect that we collect 2500+ (8% of the student body according to the ASUCD constitution) signatures ON PAPER PER CANDIDATE. Only 2600 students voted. We have the right to accountability + transparency.”

On April 26, a Judicial Council hearing regarding the recall of Gofman and Branson was held.

Gofman has been accused by former ASUCD officials such as Nelson of transphobia and homophobia. At the March 15 Senate meeting, David Heifitz, the former Business and Finance Commission chair, announced his resignation from his position, saying he would not “serve on the same table as people who are racist, transphobic [or] homophobic” following the election results.

As a senator, Gofman wrote an article defending Milo Yiannopoulos’ right to speak on campus, although he condemns the controversial figure. He was also removed from the ASUCD commission Campus Center for the Environment when he abstained from voting on a resolution urging the creation of an environmental justice course. Gofman said he took “vehement issue” with language that critiqued agricultural companies and definitions of the university as a colonialist power.  

According to Nelson, the allegations of voter coercion sparked the recall efforts. Obstacles arose, however, which served as loopholes to dismiss legal recall efforts such as unavailable petitions and the requirement that complaints must be submitted before the election. Nelson said there was a lack of response and communication when she asked ASUCD for petition forms.

The Judicial Council later found bylaws on the recall process to be unconstitutional in that the petitions must be submitted before the announcement of results.

“As with anything in the Association, the administrative procedures governing recalls are

laid out in the ASUCD Bylaws,” the majority opinion issued in the case Nelson v. ASUCD stated. “However, what would appear to be years of legislative tinkering has led to a mangled recall process that runs perpendicular to the ASUCD Constitution. Two blatantly unconstitutional aspects of the Bylaws include the timeline for initiating a recall, and the threshold for its success.”

The Judicial Council ruling struck several “unconstitutional bylaws” and clarified the recall process.

According to Judicial Council Chair Ryan Gardiner, who issued the majority opinion, the convoluted process and rigidness of submission dates did provide an unfair barrier to recall.

Nelson alleged purposeful miscommunication due to biased ASUCD officials who may be partial to Gofman and Branson. However, the majority opinion stated that Nelson’s “denial of rights occurred as a result of a bureaucratic and administrative process so difficult to navigate that it makes the exercise of one’s rights impossible.”

“On April 17th, 2018, Rebecca Nelson attempted to exercise her constitutionally guaranteed right to initiate a recall election against several ASUCD elected officials,” stated the majority opinion. “The process that ensued was riddled with inconsistency, confusion, miscommunication, and amounted to a denial of the petitioners right to recall. In this particular case, denial of rights did not occur as a result of an individual’s unconstitutional decision making. This case also shed light on the failure of several institutions within the Association, including the Bylaws, our system of elections administration, and the legislative process.”

The recall petition is currently available for pick-up at the Student Government Administrative Office.

In arguing for the option of online voting, Nelson said that requiring in-person petition signatures is technologically archaic and ableist against those immobile. She said that recall petitions should be held to the same regulations as original voting submissions — votes for the Winter Elections were submitted online.

Mahssa Rezaei, the current Elections Committee chair who took over after the previous chair resigned, explained at the hearing why the Elections Committee did not want to provide online petitions. She claimed that “there’s no system for online petition.” According to Rezaei, Creative Media (the committee that created the online voting platforms) is “too busy to code and create an online petition.”

Nelson asked about the possibility of creating a Google form or document.

At the Judicial Council hearing, Rezaei said they tried to go forward with online petitions but were “questioned at the committee by the constitutionality of this whole process.”

Ultimately, Rezaei reiterated the Elections Committee’s reasoning against providing online petitions, but did agree to make physical petitions available to Nelson in accordance with Judicial Affairs’ new ruling. In addition, the Elections Committee must prepare and present official petition forms to the petitioners within two academic days.

“Judicial Council’s ruling indicated that the decision to provide paper or electronic petitions is up to the discretion of the Elections Committee,” Rezai said. “In regards to the Google Form, in addition to the reasons we outlined during the hearing for having physical petitions, the committee also discussed possible issues that may arise with this form of an online petition. We have decided to move forward with providing paper petitions.”

Guidelines of the current petition still require signatures from 2,364 undergraduates, or 8 percent of undergraduate students within four weeks. The recall petition forms are currently available on the ASUCD website on the Elections page.

Written by: Aaron Liss — campus@theaggie.org

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this article stated that printable petitions are unavailable. It has been updated to reflect that printable petitions are available online. This article has also been updated to clarify Michael Gofman’s condemnation of Milo Yiannopoulos.

Event gives students opportunity to explore, create prototypes for start-up businesses

The 2018 Creator Challenge Series hosted by the UC Davis Student Start-Up Center was held over the course of two weekends in April and May.

According to Liz Tang, the director of the SSC, the Creator Challenge Series is “a mix between a hackathon and a start-up weekend.” Students of diverse majors including design, business and engineering worked in teams to create prototypes for start-up businesses.

The series was divided into three events: the Ideathon, the Create-a-thon and the Sharkathon.

The Ideathon, held on April 28, gave students the opportunity to play with new technology, exchange ideas with other students and meet successful entrepreneurs.

“With the Ideathon, we wanted to get their creative side working,” Tang said.

The Create-a-thon focused on execution and finding out whether the ideas were actually feasible. Starting at 4 p.m. on May 4, students slept over on campus and continued working through the next day.

Teams present at the event had a variety of innovative ideas.

One team worked on a bracelet that could help detect when someone is going into anaphylactic shock and provide a more convenient way for allergy patients to inject epinephrine into their bodies when they have an allergic reaction.

“I have a severe allergy to tree nuts, and the current methods of dealing with anaphylactic shock is expensive and cumbersome,” said Anusha Klinder, a second-year global disease biology major and member of the team. “I wanted to invent something that targeted anaphylactic shock more accurately.”

Another team worked on a platform that combines car sharing and ridesharing. Users of the platform had the option of joining a rideshare or renting a car if there wasn’t anyone else going to their desired location.

Other teams included a team working on a device to detect ulcer formation in diabetic patients and a team from China who had developed a mini program on the popular Chinese social media website, Wechat, that helped international students from China purchase and sell a variety of used goods from cars to food.

“I wanted an app to help me figure out little things like buying and selling used goods,” said Benda Zhu, the founder of the mini-program and a fifth-year mechanical engineering and economics double major. “I did this project because this app is exactly what I need.”

The first-place prize for the Create-a-thon was $1,000 dollars plus a start-up trip to San Francisco. The second-place prize was $750 and third place prize was $500. In addition, $1,000 prizes were awarded to teams who best incorporated health and sustainability in their projects.

Ten finalists from the Create-a-thon were then invited to the Sharkathon on May 6 where they had the opportunity to make a presentation and pitch their ideas to judges.

“It’s basically like the TV show Shark Tank,” said Hemali Patel, the lead project manager at the Creator Challenge Series.        

Written by: Clara Zhao — campus@theaggie.org