To Michael V. Drake and the University of California Board of Regents,

Howard Gillman needs to be removed from his position as Chancellor of the University of California, Irvine. Members of the University California, Irvine community call on the President of the University of California, Michael V. Drake to begin the process of removal of Howard Gillman as Chancellor or to ask that he resign. 

According to the University of California 'Regents Policy 1500: Statement of Expectations of the President of the University' the role of the University President is to "serve as the academic leader of the institution, defining the vision for the University, and leading the system in developing and executing plans in support of that vision..." Howard Gillman is not the man that the University of California, Irvine, should involve in their vision in any way shape or form.

According to Regents Policy 1500, "The President shall serve as the chief executive officer, leading the administration of the University, recommending, supporting and evaluating the performance of chancellors." If Michael Drake is doing his duty as president properly, he will evaluate the Chancellor's performance in recent days and find that it is not up to par with the vision of "excellence" that the University of California holds itself to.

The Chancellor has made numerous decisions in regard to recent campus protests that clearly make him guilty of being an inadequate leader for the University. 

Below are detailed reasons of how Howard Gillman has failed his campus community and is not qualified to be the Chancellor of UCI. 

On April 29th, 2024 pro-Palestine student activists at the University of California, Irvine started an encampment on the school's campus. This encampment was a form of protest calling for UCI  divestment from investments that in any way contribute to the genocide in Palestine.

Since the beginning of the encampment, UCI's Chancellor, Howard Gillman has conducted himself in a way that is not in the best interests of the campus community. 

On April 29th 2024, Gillman sent out an email titled "campus activity update" where he condemned the existence of the encampment. There was not a single mention of the nature of the encampment's protests or acknowledgement of the protestor's goals to divest from the Palestinian genocide. 

Ignoring the voice of the protesters in a mass email to the UCI community is not only disrespectful but in violation of the University of California's 'Regents Policy 1111: Policy on Statement of Ethical Values and Standards of Ethical Conduct'. Listed in the Regents Policy 1111 under "Standards of Ethical Conduct" is 'Fair Dealings', it states that "Members of the University community are expected to conduct themselves ethically, honestly, and with integrity in all dealings." Howard Gillman sent out an email that painted the protestors as "unlawful" and "disruptive" without informing members of the community of the full details regarding the situation. He intentionally created a biased, one-sided description that misled the community into viewing the protestors in a negative light. As a leader of a University of California community, transparency and integrity are necessary in all endeavors. Chancellor Howard Gillman's actions clearly fall short of transparency and integrity. 

On May 3rd 2024, Gillman sent yet another deplorable email. This email titled "Update on Campus Protests and University Response" was Gillman's second time at creating an unfair, biased, and one-sided depiction of the encampment. In this email, Gillman accuses the protestors of violating what he condescendingly called "common-sense" policies. At no point was there any mention of what actions in specific were in violation of policies or what policies they were in violation of. Gillman continuously made hollow accusations about the protestors and their demands without ever disclosing the actual demands that he was refusing. Not only that, but he made loaded statements that allude to the protestors being anti-semitic without providing any evidence of statements or instances of anti-semitism. 

Again, the Chancellor makes it impossible for his community to view the situation unbiasedly. He is guilty of intentionally misleading his community.

Another two emails were sent out on May 7th, and then on May 13th. Both of those emails were titled 'Update on the Rowland Hall Encampment'. Both of those emails, again, created an incomplete picture of what was occurring with the encampment. 

Howard Gillman using his power and platform to paint protestors as menaces to the community, protestors who are not afforded the same power or platform, can and should be considered an attack on the community he is meant to lead. 

Those two initial emails that were sent out before the May 15th incident are enough to thoroughly condemn and re-evaluate the Chancellor's ability to lead. Yet, there is more. Chancellor Howard Gillman made decisions that will forever leave a stain on not just the University of California, Irvine but the city of Irvine as a whole.

On May 15th, Howard Gillman involved the police in the situation with protestors and the results were catastrophic. The decision to involve the police was not the issue in and of itself, it was the decision to:

Approve/Issue multiple inflammatory and false zotALERTS to the campus community about "violent protests"

• There were no real situations of violence that occurred and these alerts incited chaos and fear on campus.  
• The alerts claimed that a violent protest had been "confirmed" and urged people to "Avoid the area." and "shelter in place". These claims were false and there has yet to be any substantial proof of violence on part of the protestors that warranted such a reaction.
• There were in fact multiple instances of violence in the area and at the protests, however, the violence solely occurred from the police officers that Gillman issued for, as they attempted to control the crowd and make arrests

Stray from the UC's Robinson/Edley Report (an official UC issued report on dealing with non-violent, civil disobedience protests)

• The Chancellor claimed that he exhausted all other alternatives before resorting to calling in law enforcement. He never disclosed what other routes of peaceful resolution he took.
• The Robinson/Edley Report says that "Once a protest is underway and individual protesters begin to engage in civil disobedience, the decisions made by administrators can directly affect whether the protest ends peacefully rather than with violence"
  • Gillman allowed for hundreds of police officers with heavy weaponry and riot gear to be unleashed onto students and faculty.
  • 28 members of the UCI community were forcefully arrested and subject to harsh conditions at the hands of the police. This is because of Howard Gillman's response to their peaceful protests.
  • Gillman made decisions that directly caused for violence on the UCI campus.
• The Robinson/Edley Report recommends "creating an accurate record of the actions of police and demonstrators during demonstrations", clearly this was not done as proven by the false zotALERTS that were issued. 
• The Robinson/Edley Report states that "civil disobedience has been used as a form of expression in respected and important political movements."
  • Howard Gillman, despite having multiple publications on the topic of free speech and protest, does not show any respect for non-violent civil disobedience. He believes that non-violent civil disobedience requires violent police intervention as shown by his response to the protests on May 15th, 2024.

Act on personal viewpoints

• In the email Howard Gillman issued at 11pm on the night of the May 15th incident Gillman wrote statements that allude to the fact that he believes that the pro-Palestinian, anti-genocide protests are in alignment with anti-Zionism. Which would entail that Zionism is anti-Palestinian and pro-genocide according to Gillman's own line of reasoning*. This line of reasoning does not dissuade him from regularly protecting the expression of Zionism on the UCI campus.
  • The statement in question: "One can only imagine the response if people on the other side of these issues established an encampment to force me to censor all anti-Zionist academic and student programming."
  • Note the usage of sarcasm in his professional address to his campus community.
  • Gillman felt the need to take the biased stance that the public is favoring one group's take on the genocide in Palestine more than another. Therefore, he is implying that the views of people on the other side of the conflict should be more respected than they are.
  • *If this is not his line of reasoning then the other plausible explanation for his statement is that he has deeply failed to understand the intent of the protestors and if that is the case, he is yet again guilty of not exhausting all possible options such as listening to and considering the true demands of the protestors.
• In order to make a statement like the one mentioned above, Howard Gillman can no longer remain unbiased. 
  • It was clear that Gillman was biased from the beginning, as noted by his habit of only addressing the discrimination and victimhood of one group with whom he holds a clear allegiance. Meanwhile, discrimination has been rampant in all forms towards many groups and he has ignored it. 

As made clear by the account of events listed above, Howard Gillman is not suitable to be the Chancellor of the University of California, Irvine. His response to the pro-Palestinian student protests has shown that he is incapable of meeting the needs of his community. 

Howard Gillman displayed that he is more interested in the repression of valid forms of protests than he is in fostering a community where free-speech is listened to, whether it aligns with his views or not. 

In the book co-authored by Howard Gillman entitled Free Speech on Campus it is argued that "campuses must provide supportive learning environments for an increasingly diverse student body but can never restrict the expression of ideas".

The University of California, Irvine deserves a Chancellor who will at least stand by the ideals they have built a career on, even in the face of situations that challenge them.

The University of California, Irvine deserves a Chancellor who will not involve massive amounts of armed police officers into a peaceful protest, who will not passively wait until hours after they police have torn down the community's freedom of expression to acknowledge the existence of the event.

The University of California, Irvine deserves a Chancellor who will not belittle the efforts of protestors in condescending emails to the campus community.

The University of California, Irvine deserves a Chancellor who will make decisions that simultaneously "provide supportive learning environments" while still never "restricting the expression of ideas". 

Howard Gillman is unfortunately and evidently not that Chancellor.

Therefore, Chancellor Howard Gillman should be removed from his position as Chancellor of the University of California, Irvine or resign effective immediately.  

Fiat Lux,

A disgusted UCI student