Celeste Rose is a former Vice Chancellor who was at the center of an executive compensation controversy in 2005 and 2006.
In Spring of 2005, Rose was asked to resign from her post as Vice Chancellor for University Relations. She claimed she was being discriminated against on the basis of her race and gender. A December 2005 investigation by the San Francisco Chronicle revealed that Chancellor Vanderhoef offered her a compensation package, behind closed doors, to prevent a lawsuit. The package guaranteed her two years as an advisor to the chancellor with a salary of $205,000, with no work requirements and no possibility of termination. In addition, she received $50,000 to "help her find new employment". She also retained her former benefits, such as a growing pension, severance pay, and health care. According to the San Francisco Chronicle: "The salary and transition payment alone add up to $460,000. In addition, it could potentially give her an additional $20,500 in severance and boost her annual pension by as much as $17,000 a year."
Rose is married to a legislative aide of an assemblyman who is a member of the Black Caucus in California's state legislature. Vanderhoef claims he received calls from the caucus asking that Rose be treated fairly. The caucus denied this.
The controversy resulted in an unsuccessful vote of no confidence for Vanderhoef by the Academic Senate.
Rose was also the first black woman appointed to the NCAA's senior management staff in 1997.
Read all about it:
Larry faced with "no confidence" vote
2006-01-27 21:08:09 What a douchebag. It's nice to see how so many people sacrificed during the civil rights movement so Rose can drop a discrimination lawsuit for money and a job with the people she accused of being racist and sexist. Did those people stop becoming racist and sexist after parting with taxpayer/student money? Too bad MLK Jr. didn't know about the redeeming power of money...could've saved him a lot of trouble and speechmaking. —ApolloStumpy
2006-01-28 10:15:16 Bringing up MLKJ is non-sequitur. MLKJ's work was with poor southern African Americans, not the educated and affluent. His work stands on it's own merit regardless of the conduct of others. The reality is that only a handful of people know the whole Celeste Rose story and they're not talking. We don't know why she was fired. I can *guess* that she thought she had a job for life and found an lawyer that agreed with her. Larry made a command decision to pay her off probably because either a) she had a chance of winning big or b) the publicity of the case would be damaging to UC and/or UC leadership. Sadly, I don't think there's any way for us to know. —GrumpyoldGeek
2006-01-29 20:23:16 I guess someone here doesn't know the meaning of "facetious." And I'm pretty sure MLK Jr. fought for minorities in general - there wouldn't be very many "educated and affluent" AAs if it weren't for him and other civil rights leaders. —ApolloStumpy
2006-01-29 20:42:45 I know what "troll" means. I won't bite again. —GrumpyoldGeek
2006-01-29 20:44:26 how was I trolling? You obviously misread my comment. I'm attacking Rose for being a sellout, not MLK Jr. —ApolloStumpy
2006-02-03 06:20:50 In the SF Chron article, Rose's attorney says the facts related to her claim of discrimination are "compelling." Why has no one—the Aggie, the Davis Enterprise, the Bee and the Chronicle—bothered to test the claim by conducting an investigation into the Chancellor's personnel practices? The fifty members of the faculty who signed the petition to conduct a vote of "no confidence" should be among the first to start asking such questions, unless of course they have no interest in equal opportunity and diversity. I suppose such a course of inquiry is too much to ask from the faculty of one of the world's leading "research" universities? One might start by asking what would one have to demonstrate to sustain a claim of discrimination? Unless, of course, it's easier to villify the person making the claim.... —VincentHarris
2006-02-03 06:35:26 Either way, she sounds like a sellout —ApolloStumpy
2006-02-03 09:58:11 Well of course her attorney claims the facts of her case is compelling, what a shock. And I certainly don't think the the lack of minority hires in the admin qualifies as evidence, at the most that simply proves the lack of affirmative action. But I totally agree that someone needs to investigate this, and the student paper or petitioning faculty certainly seems like a good place to start. I agree that a quick settlement looks bad. If the SF Chron is right that perhaps the UCD Admin. just wants to avoid bad press, I would say it is already too late for that. Besides if there is no merit, they would be better off clearing their name. And p.s., let's face it, Davis is good, but it is not one of the world's leading research universities. —JackMehoff
2006-02-03 12:52:48 Well, by a broad enough definition... Besides, Davis is a leader in some fields. —RoyWright
2006-02-03 16:37:11 A few more details in a SacBee article today —GrumpyoldGeek
The leader - at the seat of power. Anyway, do we know if a move to terminate her contract would work? Surely there must be some provision against allocating UC money to bribes/extortionists? JosephBleckman
2006-02-03 19:44:32 You know, if she HADN'T threatened a lawsuit but this arrangement was made it would be widely condemned as ridiculous graft/bribery/corruption. Yet because she sued, its okay to give her half a million dollars to do nothing. Why is it that her contentious action justifies her looting of the UC budget? Really I think the person to be condemned here isn't Chancellor Vanderhoef, but Celeste Rose, who is currently pillaging our collective funds. —KrisFricke
You are a white male, therefore, you have no idea what it is like to fill a woman's role in an increasingly racist and sexist system. Furthermore, you will never understand the intense pain of sexism against an African American woman in our patriarchal society. As a white man, you were brought into a world which gives you inborn white privilege. Sadly, your ego is allowing you to broadcast your own ignorance over the world wide web. People who are the causes genocide and feminicide are either ignorant, apathetic or immoral. Are you?
If you would like to discuss "who is currently pillaging our collective funds," please look to the revovling door of administration anf industry.
Learn who the UC Regents are and where student fees are really going.
Research "white privilege" educate yourself , research "UCD anti-semitism and Howard Zochlinski". Lastly, consider an apology for the slander against Ms. Rose.
She has put up with racists and sexists for 55 years, Mr. Fricke. Have you?
-Abednego Wood
Abednego Wood, if that is your real name (and its not) —
(1) Many people would wonder why I would even bother to respond to such a clearly psychotic posting, so I shall address this question first of all. While obviously I don't have to worry about anyone actually being swayed by your pitiful argument, it amuses me to point out the many reasons why what you say is completely inapplicable to the argument at hand.
(2) Reread the comment of mine to which you responded. Does whether or not one lady who already earns $180,000 a year receive half a million dollars to do nothing hinge upon an "idea what it is like to fill a woman's role in an increasingly racist and sexist system?" I would say it does not. That is money which could, among other things, probably have otherwise been given over to a scholarship for persons of underrepresented minorities & genders.
(3) Re: "Sadly, your ego is allowing you to broadcast your own ignorance over the world wide web." Please identify what in my original posting could be perceived as egotistic.
(4) Re: "People who are the causes genocide and feminicide are either ignorant, apathetic or immoral. Are you?" (A) No. (B) When did genocide & feminicide join the discussion of whether or not Celeste Rose deserves half a million dollars?
(5) Re: "the revolving door of administration" yes thats what I was implying Rose was a part of, when I foolishly overlooked the fact that her ethnicity/gender exonerates her from being part of the system.
(6) As mentioned below, you clearly don't know the definition of slander. I have written about the definition of slander in the paper as well as initiated defamation lawsuits, I know what th definition of slander is and it more closely resembles what you're trying to do to me than anything I have come close to. -KrisFricke
Yeah, Fricke! Whitey don't face discrimination or racism at all. It's all lollypops and roses for you white folk. You just don't understand! -JosephBleckman
Educate yourself, look up the definition of slander. —DWG
2006-03-02 04:14:50 So basically because miss Rose is a Black woman we cannot question her? Apparently now asking questions is racist. I believe this matter deserves some serious thought and attention from people on both sides of the issue. Obviously there is a lot of animosity here. Perhaps C. Rose should make a public statement concerning allegations as should L. Vanderhoef. Perhaps an article in the Aggie is in order? —TusharRawat
2006-03-02 08:40:05 AbednegoWood sounds like a first year Poly-Sci major. —JasonAller
2006-03-02 09:30:01 Or a Celeste Rose sockpuppet —GrumpyoldGeek
2006-03-02 09:37:50 I think the Black Caucus involvement issue is just as fascinating. Vanderhoef says they called with concern, they laughed/denied it off, but coincidently, Rose's husband is an aide to a caucus member. —ES
2006-03-02 14:26:25 Celeste Rose is black? Seriously, this somehow escaped me up to this point. To me, I've always looked at this as a debate between whether the University should be run as a corporation (as L. Vizzle paid off Rose to avoid further complications) or as a public body (where a public investigation would be necessary, and the guilty wouldn't be protected by the University). It's really an issue between the faculty and the administration as to how the University should operate. This is why, as a grad student and member of ASUCD, I've been trying to avoid this issue and get other students to avoid it too. I believe the issue is not so much about Rose herself as it is about how the University operates. —BrentLaabs
2006-05-16 12:49:50 Another SacBee article http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14255891p-15071057c.html —GrumpyoldGeek
2007-01-11 00:44:54 Racial blackmailing is heartwarming —NathanielFurniss
2008-03-07 15:55:22 The SacBee state employee salary search engine shows her earning $237,054.70 per year. —JimStewart
Comments:
You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.