I have argued that policies (laws?) with teeth would be better than replacing the staff. Even if the UC would not enforce the policies, it gives rival agencies something to hold over them should they misbehave in the future.
The chancellor was hired with an enormous salary under the theory that she would be net more donors and be worth it.
Donors who gave so much money they have buildings named after them wanted her to resign. They didn't get their way.
As an alumni, I received emails from the chancellor about the pepper spray. The first arrived the day of, reflexively siding with the police. A day later, when this appeared politically untenable, she called for an investigation to conclude in 30 days, the Reynoso report. 30 days later I got an email from the chancellor again -- she had ignored the report entirely and was asking for money. I went to the internet to look up the report, and it found her largely culpable.
I removed myself from the alumni mailing list. I decided that, no matter how rich I ever got, I would never give anything to UC Davis.
Well seeing that the expected value of trying to erase something from the Internet for any sum of money appears to be 0, I'd say replacing the administration is a safer bet.
