Justice is supposed to be blind. The jury isn't

It's unclear at this point how the Academic Senate hearing to deal with censuring the chancellor is going to proceed. It's on Zoom, but any Senate member can be in on the call and can speak, not just the official members of the Legislative Assembly. So there could be logistical problems. This particular meeting could have a large number of people on the call, given its unusual agenda.

But even if logistical problems don't arise, we have yet to hear from the chancellor. Justice is supposed to be blind, but the jury is supposed to have the relevant facts. The jury should not be blind. Shouldn't the chancellor be able to speak or send some kind of communication in direct answer to the charges being made? Of course, there is no requirement that he do so, but should not the offer be made? 

At least some consideration might be given to postponing the vote, too, since a cooling off period might allow more information to be gathered.

As blog readers will know, yours truly has set out some suggestions for what the chancellor needs to do at this point.* But he may need a reasonable amount of time to do what has been suggested, or even to decide not to.

====

*https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2024/05/academic-senate-vote-on-censuring-block.html.