Poster & flier for Nov. 9-10 student strikes

Please share around! Also, the date of the general assembly to plan for the november actions has been pushed back to Monday, Oct. 17. It will probably happen in the union hall (2070 Allston), but could be moved onto campus...

The Absent Professors

Today, the Daily Cal reports what we've known for awhile: that faculty, with a few important and inspiring exceptions, are no longer part of what is now a student-worker alliance against the privatization of public education.

“The faculty is a whole range — we don’t agree on anything except that we want this place to be great," Jacobsen said. "We differ on tactics, on strategy, even sometimes on what great means, but we want this university to be great."

It's important to acknowledge that this phenomenon is not new -- it just took the Daily Cal a year or two to figure it out. Since the 2009 September walkout, faculty have remained deeply divided about potential responses to privatization -- from embracing tuition hikes to preserve "excellence" and proposing that flagship institutions like UC Berkeley become autonomous from the rest of the UC system to attempting to channel popular outrage into support for a California ballot initiative and Democratic party legislators (a faith in in the Democratic Party which has had devastating consequences for California public higher education).

Split between the more politically moderate SAVE and the more activist Solidarity Alliance, ladder-rank faculty willing to speak out against privatization were from the very beginning a tiny fraction of total faculty. Although there are exceptions, ladder-rank faculty have historically shown little to no interest in supporting, for example, ongoing university staff labor union struggles and opposing UCOP's infamous pattern of intimidation and open contempt for organized labor -- from unionized graduate students to unionized librarians.

We've been discussing these issues here for some time. Last November, for example, we examined the comments made by a number of faculty members regarding the round of protests, walk-outs, and occupations that took place in 2009-2010. What they said made clear that they no longer saw themselves as participants or even understood the rationale for public protest, let alone potentially disruptive protest. There was a strong sense that the faculty saw themselves instead as "standing on the sidelines, observers of what is essentially a student movement...bystanders." Though ladder-rank faculty are simply not impacted by the tuition hikes the way students themselves are, many faculty (especially those without tenure) hate the way the university is being managed but often continue to observe the education "movement" as though they were outside of it and as though it were a single homogeneous organization.
 
More recently, of course, we examined the striking lack of solidarity found in the recommendations of the Academic Council of the Academic Senate, seen in the Daily Cal article as the one remaining site from which faculty are attempting to contest the administration's plans. In these recommendations, the Council not only comes out in favor of tuition increases for students but also endorses the expansion of contingent/precarious adjunct labor at the UC -- a superexploited class of lecturers with no benefits, health insurance, or job protections which as others have pointed out is a fundamental policy tenet of the privatization of higher education nationally. Obviously these views do not represent the entirety of the UC faculty, but the distance between these recommendations and the original general demands of the SAVE faculty group are stark: 

"To ensure the future of the University of California as the world’s premier public university system:

• We demand that Gov. Schwarzenegger, the legislature, and the Board of Regents fulfill the Higher Education Compact (2005) and reaffirm the commitments set forth in the Master Plan for Higher Education (Donahoe Act; 1960).

• We oppose the Board of Regents’ privatization strategies and call on the Office of the President to act in concert with faculty to preserve the highest level of excellence in the core teaching and research missions of the University.

• We urge UC alumni to support these missions as their highest priority.

• We insist upon greater administrative and budgetary transparency in recognition of the principle of shared governance."

Despite a litany of familiar criticisms about leaderlessness and demandlessness, the recent proliferation of "Occupy Wall Street"-inspired protests should remind us that the California public education "movement" was never simply one organization, body, or program, but an cross-sectoral coalition of different groups organizing teach-ins, poetry readings, general assemblies, speakouts, townhalls, and statewide organizing meetings among organized labor groups.

Part of the vibrancy of the "movement" was due to the fact that no single organization monopolized this field of different constituencies, each impacted differently by tuition hikes, layoffs, budget cuts, and intensifying campus racism. There is simply no reason, other than political fatalism or squeamishness around longstanding activist debates about direct action or "diversity of tactics," why such educational or outreach events cannot be organized again by concerned faculty or any other student group impacted by the cuts.

Readers of this blog can draw their own conclusions about the effectiveness of continuing to petition Sacramento legislators versus the combination of outreach, education, and disruptive political actions which California witnessed briefly in 2009--where concerned students, staff, and faculty each played an important role in creating the conditions for mass mobilization.

Chilean Government Criminalizes the Student Movement

This is a very rough translation of an article in Spanish from Página 12. It's especially interesting in the context of ongoing discussions about "violence" and "nonviolence" regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement and, of course, everything that's taken place in the UCs over the last few years. It's worth remembering that in the US these things are already crimes:

Criticism rained down after the right-wing government led by Sebastián Piñera signed a bill that adopts new criminal charges. The law, which seeks to stiffen measures against public disorder, arrives in the middle of intense social protests, especially the marches and mobilizations carried out by Chilean students over the past five months.

Under this law, protesters who participate in illegal occupations of educational establishments, such as primary or secondary schools or universities, could face a sentence of up to three years of jail time, since it criminalizes the "illegal occupation or invasion of property," including homes and commercial, industrial, religious, or educational spaces, whether public, municipal, or private.

The law constitutes an attack against the primary instrument of leverage that the student movement has used, having forced the end of the school semester because of the government's failure to make advances in negotiations. The initiative also aims to punish the lack of respect toward police officers, regulate the sanctions for incendiary bombs, and make it an aggravating circumstance to wear a mask.

"Whosoever attempts to disrupt the tranquility and normal life of citizens or to attack public or private property will face strong and firm legislation establishing punishments that correspond to criminal acts," said Piñera, in an attempt to fulfill one of his campaign promises: to reduce criminality in the country. Polls show that the public continues to judge him harshly in this area.

"We are going to pass this project on public disorders as fast as possible," added the Interior Minister, Rodrigo Hinzpeter, yesterday, generating more criticism from student and opposition leaders. "Public disorders are going to be a crime. And when, with force, with violence, there is looting, occupations of public or private buildings, among them hospitals, educational or religious establishments, streets, or public services, these are going to be crimes... We must keep minorities from kidnapping the rights of the majority," added Hinzpeter.

In this context, the president of the Federation of Students of the Universidad Católica, Giorgio Jackson, said that the measure "responds to a logic of looking at the symptom and ignoring the disease. I feel from what is being attacked that once again what is happening here is a superficial approach to the issue."

He added that he had participated in the occupation of his university and "it was absolutely peaceful, in which students together with workers and professors developed work plans on art and culture. In no way would I think that this represents a criminal attitude. These laws, which will probably lead to repression, have to be carefully reviewed, and each case has to be analyzed separately. The spokesperson of the Confederation of Chilean Students (CONFECH), which organizes traditional universities, insisted on local radio that "occupying schools and stopping classes has never been a hobby. Rather, it's a reflection, a shout and a call to the authorities, and in this case the entire city, to reflect on the issues of marginality, segregation and other social problems that are being experienced in our country."

Judges also entered the fray, after Piñera explained that the bill would call into question the rights of those charged with aggression against police officers. The president of the National Association of Judges, Leopoldo Llanos, declared these statements as "improper," because of the fact that they interfere with "the jurisdiction of other public powers."

Finally, part of the opposition agreed that this yet another sign of the government's failure to understand what is going on, since it once again reiterates its view of the phenomenon as "eminently subversive" just at the moment when dialogue with the students has begun, according to opposition member Pepe Auth.

(picture via)

What if they reported on a walkout, but it never happened?

The Daily Cal is up with an article about a 'nationwide' university walkout scheduled for this Wednesday at noon. The walkout was originally called by NYU students, who plan to leave classes Wednesday and then link up with the occupation of Wall Street. They want to take a stand against student debt, which, of course, Wall Street speculates the hell out of. But will anyone outside of New York actually join the thing and ditch classes?

Here's an excerpt from the Daily Cal article that reveals the strangeness of this historical moment:

Occupy Berkeley is one of the many groups joining the Occupy Wall Street network. According to the website of Occupy Together — an unofficial hub for all of the events springing up across the country in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street — there are more than 130 cities forming protests in the United States alone.

It is not clear if Occupy Berkeley plans to join the college walkout planned for Wednesday. However, the group has a scheduled meeting Saturday to discuss the proposal to occupy the area around Berkeley’s Bank of America to promote democracy, according to the Facebook event.

Occupations seem to be cropping up everywhere, and yet some that are called never materialize, and no one seems to know whether anyone is actually organizing for them. They're like ghosts in the social media machine.

What's particularly odd about the phantom walkout in the context of UC Berkeley organizing is that we're actually planning, on the same date and at the same time, a bit of protest theater: a debtors prison flash mob (info below).

Of course, this low-key action is likely to be a minor affair. Though it could get interesting if a few hundred, or even a thousand, students walked out at noon and joined the gathering in front of Dwinelle. There's actually no reason it couldn't happen. It wouldn't even be that hard. Students could tell their instructors Wednesday morning that they planned to join the walkout, and could ask whether the class might take a vote on joining as a group. Maybe twenty or thirty classes would be canceled. And a mass could begin to take shape in front of Dwinelle. Maybe we could start marching. Could reclaim a building on campus, and get going in earnest with another occupation....

Stranger things have happened.

#### #### ####

Debtors Prison Flash Mob -- 81% fee increase = a life of debt

UC President Mark Yudof wants to increase fees to over $22,000 dollars in the next 4 years, which will lock out low and middle income students as well as students from marginalized communities. For those who do make it in, a life of debt awaits.

In order to inform the campus community about the current scheme of university privatization as well as to show how the budget cuts are affecting our own personal lives as students and ...workers, the Public Education Coalition is inaugurating what we intend to be a series of flash mobs to inspire the community to creatively fight back.

This Wednesday from Noon-1PM in Dwinelle Plaza, our first flashmob, "Debtor's Prison" will dramatize the burden of debt that students and workers face as a result of fee increases and pay cuts. Participants will mark a circle on the ground around them with chalk and the statement "this is my debtor's prison" and wear signs around their necks with a statement about debt.

Join us and participate in this low-intensity creative action! Chalk will be available for you to mark your own debtor's prison-cell and organizers will be in Dwinelle Plaza with cardboard and markers starting at 11:30am so you can make your own sign.

A zombie-themed flash mob, "Day of the Living Debt," will take place next Wednesday at Noon, location TBA.

To get info on future info on future flash mobs sent to your phone: text 'follow calflashmob' to 40404.

To join our facebook group, join: https://www.facebook.com/groups/operationstopthecuts/

For an excellent primer on our future of debt read: http://www.reclamationsjournal.org/pdfs/pamphlet%20debt%20pdf.pdf

In solidarity with the occupy Wall Street Movement and The Affirmation participants!

UPR Strike in Solidarity with #OccupyWallStreet

Musical Interlude in Solidarity with #OccupyWallStreet

Open Letter to Chancellor Birgeneau Regarding Tolman Hall Arrests

From Lines of Demarcation:

To: Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, EVCP George Breslauer, Chief Mitchell J. Celaya III, Stephen Stoll, Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, Tyrone Morrison, Records and Communications Supervisor

Accounts from on-site witnesses and from videos raise some disturbing questions about the behavior of UCB Police last Thursday night, September 22, toward students participating in the open occupation at Tolman Hall. According to witnesses, sometime shortly after 9 pm, police blocked the outside doors of the building, deliberately preventing students from leaving the building. The police did not communicate to the students their reasons for taking this action nor did they give any other information to the students prior to or after the unexpected blocking of the exit doors. No dispersal order had been given. One protestor when trying to leave was tackled by police and restrained aggressively. That protestor was subsequently arrested was refused medical care while in custody. Students had previously planned to respect the closing time of the building and to leave the building when the police gave an order to disperse. We reiterate the fact that the police did not give such an order, nor communicate any instructions at all. Since the actions of students had been entirely peaceful, the sudden blocking of the doors to keep students in without explanation was unexpected, illogical, and traumatic to the students inside.

We request that the administration and the Police Review Board undertake an immediate review of what happened at Tolman Hall and we ask that the administration and UCPD provide answers, in a document to be published in the Daily Cal, to the following questions:

Who was in charge of the police response to the student activities on September 22, 2011? Who decided that police should block doors and prevent students from leaving? When was this decision made and when did the police at Tolman know of it?

What policy or policies govern the level of aggression and risk of injury permitted in police responses to student protest activities? To what degree were police actions consistent or inconsistent with those policies?

Given that the police are carrying guns, what are the guidelines guaranteeing the safety of those they are supposed to protect, or, in cases of protest, to monitor? What are the guidelines guaranteeing the safety of the police officers? Of bystanders and people from the media?

Upon what authority did the police tackle and injure the student who tried to leave the building? What was the reason for that violent response? Why was that student not allowed to receive a medical examination and care while he was in custody?

Do the police or administrators claim that one or more students engaged in any violent or aggressive act that justified this threatening and violent response? Or does the current policy and practice allow UC Police to violently restrain students whose behavior is not actually violent or threatening? What are the current criteria for arrest of students on campus?

Signed:

Amanda Armstrong, Head Steward, UC Berkeley, UAW 2865
Kyle Arnone, Trustee UAW 2865 (UCLA)
Jessica Astillero, UC Berkeley undergraduate
Erika Ballesteros
Andrea Barrera, Undergraduate, Rhetoric Dept.
Joi Barrios-Leblanc, UC Berkeley Lecturer
Axel Borg, Librarian, Shields Library, UC Davis, Vice-President for Legislation, UC-AFT
Shane Boyle, Head Steward, UC Berkeley, UAW 2865
Gray Brechin, Dept of Geography
Natalia Brizuela, Associate Professor, Spanish & Portuguese
Jordan Brocious, Sgt. at Arms UAW 2865 (UC Irvine)
Chris Chen, Department of English
Natalia Chousou-Polydouri, Head Steward, UC Berkeley, UAW 2865
Mandy Cohen, Recording Secretary UAW 2865 (UC Berkeley)
Jean Day, UC Berkeley staff, UPTE member
Ivonne del Valle, Assistant professor/Spanish and Portuguese
Cheryl Deutsch, President UAW 2865 (UCLA)
Charlie Eaton, Financial Secretary UAW 2865 (UC Berkeley)
Katy Fox-Hodess, Head Steward, UC Berkeley, UAW 2865
Judith Goldman, 2011-12 Holloway Lecturer in the Practice of Poetry, Dept. of English
Ricardo Gomez, UC Berkeley undergraduate
Jane Gregory, graduate student, Department of English, UC Berkeley
Lyn Hejinian, Professor, Department of English
Shannon Ikebe, Member, UC Berkeley, UAW 2865
Nick Kardahji, Trustee UAW 2865 (UC Berkeley)
Kathryn Kestril, UC Lecturer
Elliott Kim, Southern Vice President (UC Riverside)
Seong Hee Lim, Graduate Student, History Department, UC Santa Barbara
Larisa Mann, Head Steward, UC Berkeley, UAW 2865
Brenda Medina-Hernandez, Trustee UAW 2865 (UC Davis)
Blanca Misse, UAW 2865 Guide (UC Berkeley)
Dustianne North- UCLA Social Welfare, Doctoral Candidate
Megan O’Connor, Graduate Student, UC Berkeley English Dept.
Gabe Page, Steward, Comparative Literature, UAW 2865
Gautam Premnath, Dept of English
Brian Riley, Student Unity Movement
Manuel Rosaldo, Head Steward, UC Berkeley, UAW 2865
Robert Samuels, Lecturer, Writing Programs, UCLA, President, UC-AFT
Chris Schildt, Head Steward, City and Regional Planning, UAW 2865
Sara Smith, Northern Vice-President, UAW 2865
Ann Smock, Department of French
Michelle Squitieri, UCB Alumna and Field Representative, UC-AFT
Daniela Torres-Torretti, PhD Candidate in Education, UCD, Student Unity Movement
Jennifer Tucker, Unit Chair, UC Berkeley, UAW 2865
David Vandeloo, graduate student, Department of English
Megan Wachpress, Recording Secretary, UC Berkeley, UAW 2865
Josh Williams, Head Steward, UC Berkeley, UAW 2865

Censorship -- or something else?

By marke, Original Post Here.

Created 09/27/2011 - 4:23pm

Why did two Bay Area newsrooms dismiss Peter Byrne's story about conflicts of interest in UC investment deals?

Project Censored highlight stories that didn't make the national mainstream news media. And in this issue, we've got a story that shows something about how news judgments are made in two of San Francisco's largest newsrooms.

Journalist Peter Byrne (who once worked at SF Weekly and wrote some critical stories about us) shares the tale of what happened to a story that the San Francisco Chronicle assigned him — but never published. The people at the Chron and the Bay Citizen (a nonprofit whose work runs in the New York Times) have different perspectives on what happened in this case — and whether powerful people like Richard Blum influence whether critical stories end up in print. Readers can decide for themselves how to see this situation. 

But what was striking to us at the Guardian — and why we chose to print both Byrne's account and the final story that the Chronicle chose not to print below — was that the suppressed story was actually quite tame and well-balanced after Chronicle writers, editors, and lawyers spent months working on it (Bay Citizen also invested weeks of work and never published anything relating to the story).
It simply raised the issue of whether the University of California should be doing private equity investment deals that are overseen by wealthy, politically connected people like Blum, whose own funds were also involved. It ultimately wasn't a screaming indictment or accusation of illegal activity, but just a modest peek behind the curtain of an important institution whose focus has strayed from its core mission of serving college students.

We reviewed email exchanges that confirm the basic outline of Byrne's story, conducted some interviews that guided our editing of this story, and included responses from the Chronicle and Bay Citizen at the end of the story. Ultimately, whether this is a case of censorship or something else, we thought it deserved to find its way into print. (Steven T. Jones)


BlumGate
Why two Bay Area newsrooms dismissed my story about conflicts of interest in UC investment deals

By Peter Byrne

news@sfbg.com

In September 2010, the journalism website Spot.us published my investigative series, "The Investors Club: How University of California Regents Spin Public Money into Private Profit." It detailed how members of the UC Board of Regent's investment committee oversaw the investment of nearly $1.5 billion of UC's money into business deals in which they themselves held significant stakes.