You’ve got it on point. Here’s where it gets interesting and the real motives are coming out. The Band-uh has a $1M endowment fund that has specific language saying it can only be spent on a student run band and if the Band-uh is ever shut down, basically the alumni band board decides what happens. Kicking the alumni band off campus in the same swipe, the university is now attempting to steal the money and is saying the chancellor can override donors wishes anytime. Donors are screaming and the university has basically told them to pound sand. Don’t know where Gary May stands on this but Vice Chancellor Emily Gallindo is buddies with all the retired admins from the 90s that hated the band so she may be in his ear. It appears more and more this action had nothing to do with assault victims, that this was just a politically convenient reason.

Latest news is that the administration has caved to some pressure and will allow the Band to have a “coordinated presence” at the next home game, specifically they may stand together and lead coordinated cheers but no instruments allowed “for the safety of the students.” Write your letters folks because this is looney. 1. The alleged misconduct was at private parties, not any band performance. 2. If we have decided it is “safe enough” for the band to now congregate in a very public setting, why isn’t it safe enough for them to play? The drum major has confirmed a whole season’s worth of shows are written and ready to go.

I never know whether to take these things at face value, that he just wants to get back to classics, or if there’s dirty laundry in play, either being forced out politically or cutting and running before some controversy implicates him.

IIRC, it went for a considerable period of being a pub minus alcohol. Sodexo owned the liquor license and when they got kicked out and the University decided to self-manage it a few years ago, it took a while to get a new license. Don't think it did well during that time.

Rumor is that the University is paying the Mandarins. Can’t verify that, but if true is an outrage. For decades didn’t give the band-uh a cent and now to replace so easily.

Every year the week before classes the band-uh would host band retreat, 4 days of welcoming freshmen and teaching them to march. The university has decided there are too many negative connotations to “retreat” so in the ultimate tone-deaf move, they are renaming it “band camp,” because there are no sexualized connotations there... and no, I’m not joking. These people are morons.

I am not aware of Ms Pena doxxing anyone. I’m referring to someone from the first Aggie article. Was trying to avoid using names.

As far as alumni, the vast majority of us only came around at picnic day and homecoming and mainly interacted with people from our own eras. Occasionally would talk career advice with students interested in my field, which I thought was benign. Apparently there were a few recent grads who were not moving on with life and it was problematic.

As far as hazing, the hat activity was sanctioned by and overseen by university staff as a team building activity. It’s double speak for the university to say this was problematic but their staff did nothing wrong. The bigger problem seems to be perceived/unspoken peer pressure to participate in off-the-clock shenanigans. Like, “will I be uncool if I don’t jump on this hot tub naked?” A name change doesn’t address the root issue here. For the record, this “old tradition” is less than 10 years old and foreign to most of us alums. There is a warped sense of time and tradition in play.

A band will play at the home opener in the stands, no field show. TBD what it will be called. Unknown if any of the music or marching will be retained. They will be fundraising for new uniforms that they delusionally think alumni will fund. Not sure if there will be a Battle of the Bands anymore. If the staff director doesn’t feel like it, it ain’t happening. The alumni band is dissolved as a chapter of the cal Aggie alumni association but may still exist as an independent entity as it predates the alumni association. Unclear what that looks like but probably would not be welcome on campus.

From what I understand, the university presented 2 options, the current option A or option B to permanently disband for at least 4 years and prohibit anyone from the past being involved ever. And the basic overtone is that if anyone gives them much crap on Option A, they’ll just pull the trigger on B. I think there are also people holding their tongue because they don’t necessarily want social justice warriors to publicly paint them as rape apologists. Even if patently false, the accusation may not go over well at work.

I’ve read the report and I have to disagree with Bob. I get that he has to sell papers in the People’s Republic of Davis, but come on man, read the whole thing not just the slanted executive summary.

1. University sent an email survey over the summer. Predictably, did not have a great response rate. Many of the questions were leading or extremely broad as if they were trying to coax an affirmative response. The most damning questions were actually left blank by a lot of respondents. So in real life it’s not 40%, it’s 40% x 0.5 survey response x 0.5 question response. A small sample size with no controls applied to ensure a representative sample.

2. About 20 people participated in personal interviews. They volunteered on the email survey. So by design not a representative sample. It was people in Davis over the summer and probably especially passionate one way or the other.

3. The report acknowledges that a on significant number of specific instances described, the respondent was not a witness and had only heard about it second hand. A least one incident described occurred more than a decade prior, so was entirely hearsay.

4. The university painted the alumni band in a really negative light. While there was certainly work to be done in this area of helping students and alum understand each other, the question was very vague “have you ever had a negative experience with an alum” - you could substitute professor for alum and probably get a similar response. They did not research whether it was a few or a lot of alumni on a few or a lot of occasions causing this. What we do know is that the specific incidents reported all centered around 2 individuals, who were promptly and permanently removed.

5. No work was done to establish baseline comparisons. Are concerns about alcohol, hazing, time management, sexual harassment higher among band students than the student population in general or other student groups? Maybe this is actually a University or America culture issue.

Nobody is saying work wasn’t needed to keep the student and alumni bands relevant to 2019. Any organization must engage in continuous change and improvement. And in fact some of that change was happening. The student and alumni groups were working with campus recreation and the alumni association to make changes and updates. The vice chancellor pulled the plug before any of those could take effect. The fact of the matter is that the University has been at serious odds with the band since at least 1981 and previous attempts to take it over have failed. The administration isn’t really that concerned about alleged victims, they saw this as their chance to squash the band because in 2019 if you are accused of sexual misconduct, you are guilty until proven innocent and if you try to defend yourself you are branded a rape apologist. Facts be damned.

Over the last 90 years and 1000s of band members, there have certainly been a few bad apples who have victimized others. Statistics wouldn’t allow otherwise. To those individuals, a collective apology for your experience and we as a society must do better. But sadly this wasn’t your day in court and you’ve received no justice. Changing a name or a uniform in a top down action will do little to change things that happen in private homes among adults, which is where all of these allegations center. That needs a bottom up solution, which the University can’t seem to wrap their head around. That, and the fact that the chief complainant has been spotted on campus and social media harassing and doxing band members. Not typical victim behavior and in fact perpetuates the very behavior they/them so loudly protests. Makes me think, at least for that person, this was more about some personal vendetta.

they’ve been eroding the student run aspect for years by limiting what the band officers can do, ie Campus Rec got to review things and took over the money control but the students still wrote the shows and music and decided what gigs to play. Student-run was historically a west coast thing with Cal, Stanford, and Humboldt being the good and bad modern examples. Most D1 bands today are run by faculty directors associated to a music department, employ professional show writers, and require tryouts. Often times run as a class fall quarter with a limited pep or jazz band winter quarter for basketball. Almost all have an alumni group that joins on homecoming- we will be unique in specifically prohibiting an alumni band from existing.

Horrifying injustice is the word I would use. I read the full report. The long and short is they sent out a few hundred email surveys and then interviewed 23 students who volunteered (so not representative sample). Approximately 90% said they were satisfied or very satisfied. Of the 10% who weren’t about half had specific examples, the other half “had heard something” second hand. Of the specific examples, almost all referred to incidents on private property that were not band events and many of those were regarding dirty songs being sung in private homes - which is not a crime nor something the university has a right to legislate. The campaign against the band was organized by 2 individuals who found some sympathizers. One had been voted out as section leader and wasn’t taking it well. So there you have it, some hurt feelings multiplied by a non scientific survey with some unsubstantiated reporting along the normal university admin incompetence. Time for Emily Gallindo and Richard Engel to hit the road in my opinion.

As far as restrooms that are down there with the ARCO station in cleanliness and/or vandalism - Wyatt Pavilion/Deck, Everson, Death Star lower level, South Silo. My experience is that MU and lecture hall buildings start the day passable, but by midday are hit and miss on paper and by evening are flooded with a quarter inch of water that you don't want to think about. Even in newer office buildings like Plant Sciences, there is just a buildup of grime in the corners. It's clear they they do the old mop and wipe with some brackish mop water a few times a week but are not doing periodic deep cleans where you bring in the 1200psi steam guns. Then there are some like Wickson that are clean enough but ancient with urinals way closer than modern etiquette approves of. Heck, I hosted an event at Putah Creek Lodge and it still has the trough urinal situation. Ice block available for extra charge. I hosted another event at the Alumni Center and after it got dark discovered only about half the lights worked in the atrium. The host said it had been a problem as long as she had worked there.

New construction is great and I imagine funded by bonds. But they need to find a way to take care of the existing facilities too. Seems like renovations are usually driven by seismic or ADA only. Peeling paint, burned out lights, worn carpet and filthy restrooms everywhere.

He comes off as more intelligent and honest than many in the business. If he left for big money I wouldn’t blame him but then you could argue he’s participating in the very problem he describes. An interesting moral dilemma but we’ve all got our price. Curious if his career goal is ultimately in the AD world or in the academic world in the sports management field of study.

Picking easily available numbers, 2018 athletics expenditures are approximately $33 million, up from $28.5 million in 2016. In that time, scholarships and non-academic staff each rose about $1M, operating expense by about $2.5M. Less dramatic changes to benefits, travel, academic staff (includes some physical education faculty) — whatever operating expense includes

The alumni band is not supposed to perform with the students at current. The alumni band is free to perform its own gigs, however has chosen not to do so until the student band is freed. The alumni do not want to appear to “replace” the student band.

the official word out as of a few days ago was “nothing new to share at this time.” Not sure if no news is good or bad really.

$850k pain and suffering plus medical. If she has permanent scarring on her face then this might be a reasonable claim, although the claims of umbrella anxiety and PTSD seem extreme. They'll settle confidentially. I'm surprised she is just suing the Oregon coach. Wouldn't be surprised to see UCD get sued as well for allowing an unsafe condition on its property.

Certainly this will be premium pricing based on proximity to campus and the attached lifestyle restaurants and shopping. They can influence this toward or away from students based on lease terms if they want. There is a market of people who will pay- West Village has a waiting list. Curious if the retail and dining will struggle to fill in like West village. I do see a parking problem here - almost 900 beds but less than 300 parking spaces for residential. The real question is whether this and other projects add enough rental stock to bring prices down out of orbit at existing properties around town through supply and demand.

I mean I suppose we could bring back Gould, CGS, and Terry Tumey for diversity sake.