UC Davis Crisis Response: The Necessity for Transparency

Crises happen. It’s the response that can determine an organization’s reputation. In the case of the University of California Davis, their response only resulted in yet another crisis. In 2011, a peaceful protest ended with students being pepper sprayed at a close proximity. The story became newsworthy, as did the police officer behind the pepper spray who later became the star of many internet memes. In an attempt to bury the negative publicity, the university hired various public relations firms to alter the search results as to not include such memes. The cost of these alterations amounted to over $175,000 according to recently released documents obtained by the Sacramento Bee. The chancellor came under fire as the news of these expenses was released last week, and in compilation of a number of other bureaucratic issues internally, was placed on administrative leave pending investigation on Wednesday, April 27.

UC Davis could have avoided their current situation with appropriate corrective action. Rather than spending thousands of dollars trying to wipe the internet clean, the university should have used the funds to rebuild their once positive reputation. Chancellor Linda Katehi’s initial response to the crisis with an apology on November 21, 2011 showed signs of the university’s remorse for what had happened, but the efforts to reestablish their image in the public’s perception ended there. Even despite calls for her resignation in 2011, Katehi was optimistic that she could quell criticism over the incident. Katehi is facing criticism yet again. With the correct response to the previous crisis, Katehi could have avoided her current situation.

Following the pepper spray incident, Chancellor Katehi apologized, launched an internal investigation and placed the police chief on administrative leave. Katehi’s apology was necessary, however, she never stated future intentions, but rather called on the university to come together. Katehi should have launched an external investigation on university police in order to be more transparent as well as reestablish the institution’s credibility. In addition, mandatory training should have been introduced to ensure stakeholders that this situation won’t happen again. By resolving the problem internally, the university could have demonstrated to the public that they are proactively making changes to prevent any future crisis.

Externally, Katehi should have focused more of their resources on a new campaign that highlights the safety and inclusion of the campus, instead of trying to suppress the negative media online. By accepting the negative publicity and working towards overcoming it through rectifying behavior such as corrective action or repentance, the university would have protected its integrity. These strategies can also be applied to the current crisis Katehi is facing.

In a letter addressed to the chancellor, University of California system president Janet Napolitano wrote of her decision to place Katehi on administrative leave, “I am deeply disappointed to have to take this action… however, it is both necessary and appropriate to address these matters in a fair, independent, and transparent manner.” Had Napolitano’s need for transparency been present when the crisis began nearly 5 years ago, it is likely Katehi would not be in the situation she is in today.

Openness is a critical part of crisis response. In order to regain your reputation, willingness to disclose information and clearly explain is of the utmost importance. The internet can either help or hinder these efforts. As we know, nothing can be deleted from the internet, if you want to find something badly enough, you will; in the case of UC Davis, feeble attempts to delete internet content only made matters worse. The university’s lack of transparency is a major reason the crisis has recently resurfaced. Technology should be used as a tool to help facilitate transparency efforts; it can aid communication with stakeholders by providing updates and pertinent information, as well as frame the conversation in favor of the institution. Unfortunately, Chancellor Katehi neglected all conversations and resorted to strategies of eradicating the problem online, not on campus.

The crisis presently affecting UC Davis was both predictable and preventable. As a result of years of mishandling, the university is once again in the negative spotlight. Had Katehi responded appropriately when the crisis began in 2011, the university may not be in this position. Due to the recent resurfacing of the initial crisis, as well as financial records detailing its cover up, the integrity and credibility of the school are once again being questioned. In order to rebuild their reputations, both UC Davis administrators and Chancellor Katehi should learn from their previous missteps and be transparent.