The Sac Bee article claims a little more unsavory behavior:

"hazing"
"binge drinking"
"sexual harrassment"
42% complained about alumni band members at parties
"Naked hot tub sessions" (voluntary?)
"known rapists" (inflammatory allegations?)

I don't know if the CAMB had any representation, but ending habitual alumni band socializing, and the 'naked hot tub sessions' are easy, common sense concessions.

But if these are the standards, Zero Tolerance, a lot of student groups could fall. Fraternities. Historically Black fraternities (branding, beatings). There are probably others.

"Don't do anything you're not comfortable doing!" was frequently spoken when I was in band. I can't imagine those naked hot tub sessions would have been mandatory. At least, not in my experience.

Just a bummer - seems like there wasn’t an abundance of due process here, and I really think it’s damaging to lose the band-uh. When I played in the 90s we had a really strong bond with the band-uh. I even have a couple of band-uh CDs that my kids loved listening to. This is such a shame - are we sure this is the end of the story? No appeals process?

Sac Bee, Oct 25, 2017

Suicide, investigation and a lawsuit follow booze-fueled UC Davis ag school retreat

"It was supposed to be a two-day retreat to Monterey, a chance for a small group of employees in UC Davis’ agriculture college to bond and tour a lettuce-growing operation in nearby Salinas."

"Instead, the event turned into an alcohol-fueled bender that one participant later likened to a “booze cruise” at the Intercontinental Hotel on Cannery Row, a hotel so expensive that some staffers were asked to share beds in their rooms with co-workers."

"One manager was accused of stripping naked and asking underlings to join him in a bathtub. Two others admitted they began drinking vodka and cranberry juice on the morning car ride down to Monterey while singing along to the movie “Footloose.” "

"...And the chief administrative officer of the department, a newly hired Air Force colonel with a wife and two young children, drove to an empty field in Rio Linda, put a pistol in his mouth and pulled the trigger."

"The suit claims UC Davis discriminated against De Los Santos because he was a veteran, alleging that he was suspended and told to stay away from campus because officials were concerned he would “show up with a gun.” "

"...The retreat involved 17 staff members from the “Phoenix Cluster,” an arm of the Department of Entomology and Nematology that advises students and provides support for departments in the agriculture college."

Two staffers drank all the way down, in a car (university vehicle?).

Alcohol was purchased on a University credit card, and given to De Los Santos. Rooms $414.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/investigations/the-public-eye/article180729426.html

Double standards?

I don't have a consistent opinion or take on this so I'll just lay out a couple of thoughts

• Reforming the band seems like the university is taking a huge risk. Not only might it just never catch on and become a tradition like Band-Uh! did, but renaming it doesn't necessarily make the problems go away.
• On the other hand, this might have to do as much with consistent admin clashes with the Band-Uh! than just he most recent allegations. Admin maybe felt the need to demonstrate to student orgs that there's a consequence level beyond suspension for repeat violations.
• The extent of what's included in the University's report may not be the extent of the actual allegations / proven incidents that factored into this decision. If students reported things through other channels (i.e. to campus police, Title IX coordinator off the top of my head) then there might be other confidentiality rules in play.
• I was president of a social club and I'm trying to picture what would have happened we had activities similar to those alleged against Band-Uh! that local news reported on. I imagine we would have at least gotten disinvited from campus events that we coordinated with admin on. (Effectively, the equivalent of no longer being able to play at games). Not sure about getting dissolved as an org though.
• Don't know if there is really any standard for due process here. It's an org that uses university facilities and plays at university events. Don't know who owns the trademark but as someone else said they might very well be allowed to call themselves Band-Uh! and play off-campus. Just the university has likely no particular obligation to provide a forum for them.

From today's Sacramento Bee:

UC Davis shuts down student-run marching band. Investigation found binge drinking, harassment

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article234673882.html#storylink=cpy

“I was not subject to sexual violence in the band, but I know many people were and still are. Known rapists are still allowed to be members of the band.”
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article234673882.html#storylink=

Ok, where’s the criminal complaint? Known rapist? My guess is the truth is somewhere in the middle. And the Bee will sensationalize anything related to UC Davis.

In fairness, we don't know that there isn't one or won't be one. We wouldn't necessarily be privy to something going through the campus disciplinary channels or had a police report taken. Or if folks are talking to attorneys to decide the next course of action.

I think the assumption that what's been published so far represents the extent of the allegations could very well be wrong. Remember that despite tremendous interest from both fans and media, we still have never heard what happened that caused Chima to get permanently and immediately suspended.

On the other hand, what we know very well could be the the extent of the allegations and the University decided this was the appropriate response. I don't know, and I'm not sure any of us ever will without an insider source.

Thanks, yes I am sure there’s plenty that we will never be privy to. Feel like I lost a good friend.

Is this investigative law firm actually independent? As a long time attorney and King SOL Grad I never knew that there was such a thing as a boutique law and “investigative practice” firm that specialized in T9 stuff, much less in sacramento which is not exactly a bee hive of T9 issues (maybe USC?). So, now we have this law firm that specializes in T9 lawsuits and related issues doing this “investigation” by the leading partner of this law firm who was a former university counsel at UCD with many ties to the administration. I would challenge this choice of an investigative firm for a non-biased investigation.. i would ask: is this a “decision done by UCD- now go figure out how we can sanctify/justify this decision”? One question more: “who retained this law Firm”? If it was Galindo, she should start packing her bags. This will not get better for her.

my wife notifies me of this while looking at her news feed this morning. I checked a couple of the associated articles (I then the California Aggie). First, I will say that I don’t now what has occurred in recent years, and I don’t defend improper behavior. I was a band-uh member in the late 70s. There was always a “study bus” if you didn’t want to sing from the “hymnal” and nobody forced anybody to go to an off campus party. It was very amusing to me that one of “the victims” telling about the “hazing” associated with baptizing maverick hats in Putah Creek. Really - are kids nowadays this sensitive? We did the same back in the day and nobody got bent out of shape - in fact it was the only way to get your hat floppy. Seems like some “victims” can’t simply choose to make some reasonable decisions on there own but would rather take down an organization.

I had to dig out my old Aggie band uh manual that went over a few logistics and expectations. In it was a song sheet. Traditional fight songs and - ok boys and girls - close your eyes and cover your ears - there was a DRINKING SONG included. And to think that somehow today that I am not an alcoholic and my life isn’t totally screwed up. I guess I should have claimed victimhood and sued the university.

And I saw that the solution was to force a new name on a reconfigured band and change uniforms. Really? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Toss out the band and you’ll have no cheering section.

Does the Defendant (the Band) get a chance to defend silly or wild allegations?

Rebuttal? Confront wild accusations?

If I recall from an earlier Bee article, there was possibly one young woman who had some kind of encounter with a male member, and months or a year later decided it wasn't consensual? She may have been a driving force.

Do most female band members agree with this 'independent report'?

@69aggie I’m also a King Hall alum and am very confused about the selection of this firm, their process, and this result with no apparent chance for appeal. We’re all super busy, but is this something we could fight?

I met my future wife in the band and still regularly get together with a lot of band alumni, many of whom are female. They are some of the strongest most well rounded women I know. They would all tell you that their time in band was a vital part of their growth. Of course individual issues need to be dealt with, but I doubt you’d find many that agree with this report.

Will the proud Cal Aggie Band lie down for this? Will alumni let it stand?

Possibly one sided? Death by Innuendo and Exaggeration?

No ability to rebute, put in context, bury straw men?

Any idea what the current CAMB members think?

I've heard so many people speak joyfully and reverently of our beloved band. Opponents feared, but loved them. "Is your band coming?"

It is tough to imagine large scale, illegal behavior. More like the dorms - some people are bookworms, some in the middle, and a more rambunctious group. This likely falls on administrative hurt feelings from a previous outside band director who, if I recall, seemed sensitive and peculiar - to establish a pattern of behavior?

Sac Bee May 30, 2019

"Ema Seijas and her friend were two of the students who came forward. Seijas is a former section leader of the Cal Aggie Marching Band (CAMB) who quit just a few weeks ago.

"She told ABC10 that when she first joined, it seemed to be everything she was looking for in an organization and she thought, "This is exactly what I want to do."

However, she chose to leave after her friend shared **shocking stories of unkind treatment at parties.**

"My friend came to me with stories of what had happened to her even at these parties," Seijas said. "How she had been told to kill herself at these parties. Nobody did anything. I was at these parties. How is this happening? I wanted to believe this band all the people were doing was having fun. Nobody was getting hurt but people are getting hurt. You just have to look closer." "

Edit. Ema Seijas says in this article her goal was an investigation.

But she says, "Nobody did anything". "Nobody was getting hurt." I. E., no assualt. They directly contradict themselves.

Unfortunately, the way this went down everyone is kind of at the mercy of the university. I can tell you for certain there are a lot of alumni who want to fight against this, but lawyers/law students within the group seem to believe that the university learned from it's attempt to do this in 92 and that they way they have written things really limit any case to be held against them. There is plenty of talk about protests and pulling donations though. I don't know anything for certain that's going on in the student band, but I've heard grumblings that there is a good population there that are very upset with this outcome.

Ultimately, the university didn't really give much of a chance for the alumni to rebuttal. Their method of research was interviewing 23 students (over summer) about their experiences. While I don't know who was involved in this process I have to believe that a majority of those 23 were the ones who were being vocal against the band as they would be more likely to stay over summer to participate in these interviews.

Shitty situation all around.

Are UCLA and Berkeley bands now campus run? Was that the end goal, more centralized top-down control?

I chatted with some band members 8-10 years ago. Women. They hated the bureaucracy. Their complaints?

I believe they said almost no support. Not meals at games, not even bottled water. No priority for getting classes (I think Cal does), so the whole band rarely could all practice together.

I don't see how this backdoor quasi investigation differentiates between private behavior and official Band behavior. When one basketball player did something, possibly on a university road trip, the whole team wasn't banned. The Band is much larger, so a few people pushing the envelope on private time isn't out of the norm.

I think UCLA is campus run, but Berkeley is still student run. The university has been trying to get control of the band for decades at this point, but they never had a legitimate reason for a takeover. It's true that the band never had support. Meals at games were bought by the band members. There was always a large emphasis on what was on band time and off band time. I think that this investigation has entered into some fuzzy territory of policing students on their off time.

I heard years ago band uniforms were in bad shape. One of our first big athletic donors, an old timer, wrote s check.

Don't forget this victim mindset / new politics helped take down AD Sochor for an administration basketball hiring, and brought a women's lawsuit which included Ass AD Pam Gil.

Our administration also controls the bookstore. Some campus bookstores run by students.

Just another observation, but if this CAMB situation was so bad for so long, why did the administration (Emily Galindo?) not see all or much of this “bad conduct” a long time ago? The only possible defense for this is that there were never any formal co plaintiffs, much less lawsuits, against the CAMB so the administration had no notice if the “bad conduct.” This is exactly why this so-called investigation is so flawed. It is based for the most part on subjective evidence (“I was upset”) and outright hearsay. None of the interviews were under oath, so some kids could say anything they wanted. Remember 85% of all CAMB members felt their band experiences were “positive”!

Berkeley is/was "student run," IMO. Much stronger faculty/admin presence than the Aggie Band ever had, but a student-led leadership council. I don't know how they choose their student leaders.

Think about this. The CAMB may have a higher favorability rating than UCD!!

It sounds like 2 young ladies may be 'social justice warriors'? I can guess what their majors are.

Done in the summer, behind closed doors, when the CAMB can't defend itself.

Generic U, here we come. Where's Bob Dunning when you need him?

don’t know what the ladies majors are but one who complained in the California Aggie “a third-year American studies and gender, sexuality and women’s studies double major”.

I was in an administrative position in an academic department here (ACC ag school with an ever aspiring football team that can never seem to get over the hump) and I had to deal with hearsay third part complaints. I would not speak to accused faculty unless it was corroborated by the direct parties as I was not going to accuse people when there was no evidence. I did have a talk with a couple faculty for a corroborated issue. The claims were very mild compared to what you see on the news, and the complaintent was the most vulgar and “disturbed” student I knew of in the department. Nowadays in the University the title 9 training and hypersensitivity almost promote a “I was wronged” culture rather than teaching students how to navigate life. I am glad to be retired from the University now. You really didn’t feel that free speech was allowed.

What they did to Band-Uh! is a nightmare.

Maybe the bossy cow cow sent Galindo over the edge :). Without the Band-uh to carry on tradition, we will need a thorough cheering guide, here’s a start:

https://theaggie.org/2016/11/22/a-how-to-guide-to-cheering-at-uc-davis-football-games/

NCagalum wrote: "...but one who complained in the California Aggie “a third-year American studies and gender, sexuality and women’s studies double major”."

BINGO!!!

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I feel like there's two issues at play here: the substantiveness of the underlying claims and the decision admin made based on how it interpreted/believed those claims.

I don't think we, as keyboard warriors, have any realistic shot of evaluating the substantiveness of the claims. It seems like it's a stretch to me to dive into the majors of the accusers and other extraneous details. And I know that I actually had something happen to me like what's been accused I would be really uncomfortable/hurt that random people were actively looking for ways to discredit me purely based on publicly available information.

The university's investigators and disciplinary apparatus (and the courts, if anything discussed goes to trial or a civil suit) will be the ones who actually substantiate/ have substantiated the claims. It makes more sense to me to talk about whether we think the University made the appropriate response to what it believed were supportable accusations. I'm personally queasy on that front because I don't think calling the band something new will necessarily solve problems if they exist, and if they wanted to just make Band-Uh! a campus-run organization they could have done that. It wouldn't have been popular, but it wouldn't have gotten the kind of reaction this decision is getting.

You are entitled to your opinion. Why have the administrators been so secretive? Why would a WELL KNOWN, WELL LOVED INSTITUTION be scrapped so readily? Why couldn't they see the allegations - and have a chance to reply? One vocal accuser - directly - said NOTHING HAPPENED!

This process parallels the multiple recent sexual assault allegations, where young men often can't even rebut or answer allegations! One young Band-uh accuser, in a simple google search, directly said nothing happened, but a friend of hers had something allegedly hurtful said. ("Kill yourself.") Bad joke? Contrivance? Bitter break up?

No stretch. Notice these people with hurt feelings are rarely if ever physics, engineering, French, Econ, or Biology majors? An email survey and interviewing one side (people with hurt feelings) sure smacks of a stacked deck.