By
Natalie Johnson
April 22, 2010
Eric Godfrey, UW vice provost for student life, met with UW Police Department (UWPD) Chief John Vinson yesterday to discuss the university’s stance on accusations from the UW Student Worker Coalition (SWC) that the UWPD sent an undercover officer to “spy” at one of the group’s meetings.
Photo by Sang Cho.
SWC member Jane Mee Wong stands in front of the University Police Department. She identified a UW police officer who infiltrated the student group.
“I think it’s an outstanding police department, but this incident was out of character, not good judgment, and not acceptable, and not a tactic that we employ on this campus,” Godfrey said. “… It will not happen again.”
Godfrey said that the incident is not consistent with the goals of the university.
Earlier this week, members of the registered student organization sent a press release to several local news organizations saying that an undercover UWPD officer “infiltrated” one of their meetings and made efforts to discourage disruptive picketing and protesting.
SWC members said that they welcomed an unfamiliar woman to their April 8 meeting who called herself “Tani.” Several days later, SWC members Jane Mee Wong and Matt Hamilton recognized the woman in front of the UWPD, this time in her police uniform.
“I said, ‘Tani is that you?’ and she came over to the car,” Hamilton said.
The members identified the woman by her name tag as Officer Tanesha Van Leuven of the UWPD.
While SWC members say this incident has not changed their plans for the May 3 strike, some members are upset.
“It’s appalling that they’re doing this to registered student organizations,” said Jacob Greenberg, an SWC member. “What kind of university is this that the police come and spy on us?”
Despite the UW’s condemnation of the incident, the SWC said that it is just one in a series of attempts by the university to quiet student activists, accusing the UW administration of influencing the attempt to infiltrate the meeting.
“We absolutely do believe there’s a connection between the administration and UWPD’s action,” Hamilton said.
SWC activists said that public statements made by the university and closed-door meetings with the UWPD do little to rebuild what trust existed between the SWC members and the university administration.
Godfrey, however, said that the UW administration does not have a policy of infiltrating or bullying student groups and stressed that this particular occurrence is an anomaly among normally good relationships between the UW and student groups.
“I reject the notion that that behavior was influenced by the administration,” Godfrey said. “The decision was made within UWPD, and it was authorized by the UWPD.”
Godfrey said that this incident is not representative of either the UW’s or the UWPD’s policy.
“It is not a pattern in my view, and it is certainly not UW policy to intimidate these student groups,” he said.
Reach reporter Natalie Johnson at news@dailyuw.com.
33 Comments
#1 Nick J.
on April 21, 2010 at 11:41 p.m.Only the Left cares about this kind of thing.
If an undercover police officer would have attended a College Republicans meeting, I assure you the group wouldn't have cared.
It's the UWPD's job to keep us safe. If they felt they needed to go undercover to ensure that, then so what? They didn't do anything wrong.
#2 anonymous
on April 21, 2010 at 11:54 p.m.i would feel violated and betrayed if someone did that to me. That was basically a b**** on their end because they trying to bring down their protest. I see something wrong in that and morally not right for them. shame on you UWPD
#3 D.I. member
on April 22, 2010 at 12:01 a.m.Nick, are you a Republican? Libertarian? For all of its talk about small government the Right does a piss poor job standing up against these kind of authoritarian, Big Brother type abuses of state power. I don't see the Right opposing police brutality against youth of color. I don't see you opposing domestic wiretapping. I don't see you opposing profiling and entrapment of Arab and Muslim youth by undercover agents in mosques across the country. So if that leaves the Left as the only true defenders of democracy and freedom then, well, I imagine the Left will grow because frankly, many everyday people are tired of this McCarthyistic nonsense.
In my mind, this whole thing shows how illegitimate the budget cuts are. The administration and cops know that opposition to the privatization of UW will only keep growing so they feel the need to try to manipulate and surveil opponents of budget cuts. When they can't win the debate on a fair playing field they always play dirty.
In any case, their plan backfired, we blew their cover, and we are not afraid to keep moving. We were out there the next morning flyering for the May 3rd strike. We have growing public support on our side, they have incompetent cops like Tani on their side.
#4 Ariel W.
on April 22, 2010 at 8:18 a.m.Nick, when you say UWPD keeps "us" safe, who do you mean by "us"?
Police serve the interests of the state and the wealthy. Historically, police have been used to beat workers on strike and civil rights activists--people fighting for dignity and survival. Now, in California, with every budget cut comes a line of riot cops who beat students protesters. What groups are the police keeping safe then? Certainly not the students most affected by budget cuts, the same students from communities historically brutalized by the police.
I encourage those disgusted by the police infiltration of a student group to attend the campus strike starting on May 3 at 8 am at 15th and 40th. I encourage anyone who believes genuine democracy is from the ground up to participate. The assault on public education and the assault on civil liberties aren't abstract or unrelated.
#5 Kuzma
on April 22, 2010 at 9:04 a.m.To Ariel W:
When you start spouting off that kind of nonsense, you automatically lose all credibility and any civil debate is over. The end.
P.S. Why don't you mention something about Nazi Germany in there? That'll really spruce things up.
#6 Brian_Cox
on April 22, 2010 at 9:20 a.m.The Student Worker Coalition held a public forum ... invited everyone ... then got upset about who showed up.
There's your real story! Investigate SWC's ADD.
#7 Jeremy_R
on April 22, 2010 at 9:47 a.m.I don't fault the UWPD, I mean, this kinda thing worked for Johnny Depp in 21 Jumpstreet, didn't it?
#8 Ariel W.
on April 22, 2010 at 10:33 a.m.I'm shutting down debate by linking an incident at UW to what is currently going on elsewhere and to historic events? Actually accusing someone of being outright wrong shuts down debate. I should know, I teach freshman how to write college essays.
Ask any history professor or grad student about the historic role of police in suppressing social movements. Riot cops really beat student protesters this year in California. I'm not making shit up. First hand, I've been shoved by cops and attacked by chemical weapons myself for participating in my supposed legal right to assemble and protest.
Also SWC members are critical of the UWPD officer for not being honest about who she was, and for trying to shape the direction of the strike we were planning.
#9 Sean
on April 22, 2010 at 10:36 a.m.As I said yesterday, being a registered student organization, anyone could have come to that meeting. A reporter could have shown up and then told the entire world about this groups May 3rd plans. If their plans involve violation of student conduct code or law than they are in the wrong.
Kuzma makes the telling point about this particular group. The message gets lost in the tactics and far left paranoia about the UW and UWPD. Kiro 7 opened their original segment on this by referring to SWC as a group known for ruffling feathers at UW, their claim to fame.
#10 Brian_Cox
on April 22, 2010 at 10:38 a.m.By the way, I've met Jane Mee Wong before. She's a foul mouthed hater. I talked to her about Mark Emmert's salary. She actually advocated a system where no one was in charge of the UW budget. I don't think she should be taken seriously.
When someone is so schizophrenic that they invite everyone, then turn around and stomp their feet because people they didn't want to show up do ... well I think it would be OK to just ignore them. But certainly don't pretend that this incident is news-worthy!
#11 Matt from Democracy Insurgent
on April 22, 2010 at 11:12 a.m.We welcome everyone who sincerely wants to plan the May 3rd strike against budget cuts. We do not welcome undercover cops who want to control political dissent and undermine democracy in our movement. That's basic common sense; anyone who has participated in a democratic organization in the past should understand that.
We have nothing to hide so Tani's presence did not jeopradize our plans. I don't think Tani was really there to gather information anyway, since it would have been easy for UWPD to figure out the location and time of our actions without infilrating us: we pass out thousands of flyers articulating our plans every week. I think Tani's real goal was to try to intimidate people, to create a sense of destructive paranoia, and in particular to try and scare away immigrant workers who have been at the forefront of this movement. These are classic tactics employed by poilce agencies historically. Workers are taking greater risks than students are by participating, especially becuase there is a history of UWPD and Custodial Services management harassing and spying on workers. But if these are Tani's goals then she failed miserably. If anything, exposing her has shown that the cops are not invincible and all powerful. Instead of paranoia, the situation has built a sense of confidence and a stonger desire to come together to fight for democracy on this campus.
Also, I think this incident shows that the administration is worried about growing opposition to budget cuts. They know they can't justify privatizing UW in the eyes of the public so they have to resort to bullying their opponents. When they loose their confidence that they can win on a fair playing field they start to play dirty.
Brian, you sound like a foul mouthed hater, you're the only one on here who is making personal attacks. Jane Mee could trounce you in debate any day. And you seem to have misundestood. We are advocating a system where EVERYONE is in charge of the UW budget: It is called democracy. Apparently it's a concept that you find difficult to understand.
#12 Andy M.
on April 22, 2010 at 11:19 a.m.For the record, I'm coming from a moderate-libertarian perspective. I have ties to a group that is opposed to the strikes.
That said, I find myself upset at The Daily in this instance for failing to cover exactly what 'Tani' did or said at this meeting. And no, I don't see a quote from an SWC member as sufficient coverage in this regard.
While I support an ideal in which government (and thusly police) served a primary purpose of protecting people from physical harm at the hands of others, the reality is that we're not at that point. In comparison to some of the other abuses at the hand of law enforcement (yes, I'm talking Bush era warrantless wiretaps), I really don't see this as all that bad. I draw the line at the fact the fact that the meeting was being held in a public meeting and advertised to the public. While it may have been in poor form, only calling them out on this seems like a (very successful) publicity stunt.
#13 Andy M.
on April 22, 2010 at 11:23 a.m.@Matt
I have an honest question that I haven't heard a good answer to (I may well simply have missed it, and I'm sorry if that's the case): how does a 'democratic' budget process work?
#14 Kuzma
on April 22, 2010 at 11:24 a.m.Matt W had this to say:
I think Tani's (the police officer's) real goal was to try to intimidate people, to create a sense of destructive paranoia, and in particular to try and scare away immigrant workers who have been at the forefront of this movement.
That right there, good sir, is why I can't take you seriously. Anybody in their right mind can see that the police officer was there to gather info to make sure that your group is not planning anything destructive.
#15 Brian_Cox
on April 22, 2010 at 11:32 a.m.Your idea of a system where everyone is in charge of a budget...
OMG, where to begin? Can you show me ONE example of a good system where that was in place? That's not democracy. That's chaos!
When I say she is a foul mouthed hater I mean she repeatedly shot out the "F" word and talked about cleaning up "S" and piss out of the restrooms, as an example of the budget. It was completely out of context and senseless. She called Emmert names when discussing his budget plans. It was the most hate-filled diatribe I've ever heard. I think it's fair for people to know that, if she wants to be taken seriously. And I think it's pretty fair to talk about it.
I don't think that's really a personal attack. I think it's calling people out on their inappropriate behavior.
So, yeah, I'd love to debate her as long as it the whole thing is video recorded. No editing. I'll await her email.
#16 annon
on April 22, 2010 at 11:35 a.m.i hav been stopped countless times over the years by u.w'z finest just for being a dark chocolate curly haired male. a secretary in the aerospace department 1ce threatend to call them on me when i was taking a final (of which i got the highest grade in class) because she felt that i didn't fit the profile of what an aerospace building dweller should look like. that's personal,..... historically as some earlier posts have alluded to police were used as brutal instruments of repression for the moneyed elite & the 1st "deputised agents" in this country were used to try to recapture subjugated african descent peoples who were freeing that peculiar institution called slavery...
if 1 knows the roots 1 understands the fruits:)
#17 Van
on April 22, 2010 at 11:44 a.m.To annon:
You're full of shit
#18 Brian_Cox
on April 22, 2010 at 11:44 a.m.This is a common tactic of the socialist agitators on campus: pull out the race card! And, yes, Jason, these are what Socialist Agitators look like.
It's a shallow attempt to drum up anger at the police for a completely unrelated event.
#19 Bob S.
on April 22, 2010 at 12:08 p.m.What 'Tani' did was not wrong, but it was still inappropriate. Police officers hold a unique position in society in that we give them the right to protect us with the legal use of lethal force if necessary. With that in mind, they need to be held to a higher standard than you or me. While 'Tani' could have simply attended the meeting as an individual (which is entirely within her rights), the fact that she didn't identify herself as a police officer or state that she wasn't there on police business is troubling.
#20 Andy M.
on April 22, 2010 at 12:48 p.m.@Brian
I agree that I haven't seen a system where 'democratic' budget allocation has worked, but I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt until they offer a step by step plan to examine. If you've seen one, please share the link.
#21 Brian_Cox
on April 22, 2010 at 1:01 p.m.Any plan they have outlined is a re-invention of the wheel. I want to see where it has been done. Because, if we only want to look at theory, we need to remember that, in theory, the system falls apart to a million different voices all wanting their piece of the pie. Ask any economist how democratic budgeting works out. It's utter silliness. It's one of those ideas that sounds good, as long as you limit your explanation to "catchphrases".
Everyone likes the word "democracy". It sounds so noble. But when you talk about "democratic budgeting" you're really talking about communism. There's your example of "everyone owning everything".
That's why I ask for them to show me a system. Expose the fact that they are talking about communistic controls.
#22 Curiositas
on April 22, 2010 at 1:18 p.m.Communism is, admittedly, a broken system. But you have to admit that free-market capitalism is just as naive.
Using an allusion, if people participate in a race without judges there's not exactly a lack of incentive to cheat. Once a person starts cheating to get an edge over his or her competitors the other contestants will need to begin cheating as well or risk being beaten by the cheater.
#23 Brian_Cox
on April 22, 2010 at 1:25 p.m.I am in favor of a free-market capitalism that uses government mandates and regulations to enforce fairness and good competition.
But that's not really the topic here. The topic is SWC and Democracy Insurgent are using the term "democratic budgeting" to hide the fact that they are really talking about Communism. I don't have to advocate for unfettered capitalistic fundamentalism to be against that. I just have to look at the historical economic devastation caused by people who promote Communism.
#24 Curiositas
on April 22, 2010 at 1:28 p.m.On another note, you are aware of how the wealth is distributed in this country?
You could look at the tax records and see how the top 1% pay something like 28% of the nation's taxes. Which is fairly significant, except they have something like 37% of the nations wealth. Essentially they are taking more money out of the system than putting back in. This leads to a greater divide in wealth as the years go on.
If we had a flat tax rate where everyone paid the same percentage (Except, of course, those who have so little income as to not be able to afford it.) We might have the best infrastructure in the world again, and a thriving middle class.
#25 Brian_Cox
on April 22, 2010 at 1:40 p.m.Oh, I definitely support the Fair Tax. fairtax.org (Shameless plug)
I think income tax is inconsistent with a free society.
But I am not convinced that a greater divide of wealth is bad for our country's poor. If the standard of living of America's poor greatly increases, as it has over the last 50 years, why should I complain about profits being made elsewhere?
In fact, the standard of living of the poor in America is FAR beyond that of just about any other country in the world. And if the "greater divide in wealth" (on paper) is a part of the formula which caused this, then I'm all for it. The wealth of a country is not a zero sum game. Read Adam Smith. Wealth is created. What really matters is resources.
And if the poor are getting a bigger share of those resources to meet more of their needs (as they are today), that's a good thing for everyone.
#26 anonymous
on April 22, 2010 at 1:45 p.m.oh Brian_cox, you're such a piece of crap! You've been on this website all day commenting back and forth. Get a life, go to class, and celebrate Earth Day!
#27 Curiositas
on April 22, 2010 at 1:50 p.m.I'm afraid I might disagree with your statement about the standard of living for poor in the united states being far beyond that of other countries in the world. You have seen the figures for our life expectancy compared to places like Australia, Canada, UK, and so on, right?
I do think people who provide good services should be properly compensated, albeit I am against the idea of people being compensated beyond the means of actually spending it. When you earn a salary of a hundred million a year can you ever conceive of personally spending several hundred thousand dollars a day? You start becoming a drain on resources, and I'm not sure what job you could perform that deserves that size of a paycheck.
I'm not against the idea of taxing either, we need taxes for our schools and roads. While Communism is stupid I do believe in the creation of a public resource for the betterment of all our lives. I don't think individual people are virtuous enough to take up the mantle of public services all on their own.
#28 anon
on April 22, 2010 at 1:54 p.m.@Curiositas "You have seen the figures for our life expectancy compared to places like Australia, Canada, UK, and so on, right?"
Sure, our life expectancy sucks, but have you seen how satisfied we, as Americans are with our lives compared to other countries? Quality over quantity!
I'm not into all this political bullsh**, but I just wanted to point that out to you.
carry on with your never-ending debate, all.
#29 Brian_Cox
on April 22, 2010 at 1:56 p.m.If you've noticed that I've been "on this website all day" ... then you've spent no less time reading my posts than I've spent posting them. So I don't really get the hollyier-than-thou attitude.
And I don't have class on Thursday. So I'm celebrating Earth Day at home just running a generator for fun and doing some personal research. Posting simultaneously is pretty easy.
#30 Ariel W.
on April 22, 2010 at 10:32 p.m.Jane Mee Wong is one of the most brilliant and talented community organizers I have ever met. Brian, I think I was there for the dialogue you had with Jane Mee, if it was in Red Square earlier this school year. I recall you said cutting disability studies was a good idea.
On democratic budgeting: it's also called participatory budgeting. To quote Wikipedia: "Participatory budgeting is usually characterized by several basic design features: identification of spending priorities by community members, election of budget delegates to represent different communities, facilitation and technical assistance by public employees, local and higher level assemblies to deliberate and vote on spending priorities, and the implementation of local direct-impact community projects." Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particip...
The city of Porto Alegre, Brazil, and the cities of Kerala and Pune in India are examples of democratic budgeting, and cities are a lot bigger than a university.
The Student Worker Coalition is not a communist organization. What you all are describing as "communism" is authoritarianism, which is anti-democratic. Communist countries don't practice democratic budgeting, they practice central planning. Calling people communists is red-baiting to associate people with a word that has a bad reputation and discredit anyone who challenges the inequalities inherent in capitalism.
#31 Brian_Cox
on April 23, 2010 at 7:36 a.m.Yes, Ariel, and I've said it before on the Daily, and I'll say it again: cutting disability services is a good idea. It's also going to happen! You can't justify spending a disproportionate amount of money on a minority of students just because they come to the UW with more needs than others; not when the budget is in jeopardy of not being able to educate all of our students.
The prudent thing to do is cut it back so that we are closer to a situation where every student is getting about the same amount of funding.
I also don't think you can demand to take money from the tuition of other people to fund you child care. Too bad you won't justify your "give-me" attitude on that one right here on the Daily.
In tough financial times you don't allow this sort of "special interest" funding. You cut back to your core priorities, which in this case is education. If students come here with their own personal needs, it's a personal issue. And you insist that they pay for it themselves. That's the proper thing to do.
And regarding your "democratic budgeting", how prosperous is "Porto Alegre"? How about the two Indian cities? Do they pay for the child care of students in those cities? NO!! Porto Alegre is a poor third-world city where they are barely able to meet the sewage needs of their citizens.
I'm sorry, but you are absolutely crazy if you think the economic model that the UW should follow is that!
#32 THE HEAVY IS A SPY
on April 23, 2010 at 10:25 a.m.I am amused by entire itsy-bitsy teeny activist group!
Waaaaaaah! Cry some more!
#33 nickj116
on April 24, 2010 at 9:25 p.m.Brian, the Left argues from a position of emotion, not rationality.
Ariel will cry foul all day long at your notion (which IS rational) of cutting the budget.
Post a comment