Do NOT ever try to co-opt me. It just pisses me off.
To the Extended UC Berkeley Community:
As you know, yesterday an effort was made to establish an encampment on Sproul Plaza, by the "Occupy Cal" movement. This followed and marred the aftermath of an impressive, peaceful noontime rally on Sproul on behalf of public education, which was attended by some 3,000 participants and observers, including many campus leaders. We compliment the organizers and speakers for setting an example of peaceful protest and mobilization. As we informed the campus community earlier this week, we understand and share the concern of the Occupy movement about the extreme concentration of wealth in US society and the steady disinvestment in public higher education by California and other States.
We want to clarify our position on "no encampments" so you better understand why we do not allow this to occur on our campus. When the no-encampment policy was enacted, it was born out of past experiences that grew beyond our control and ability to manage safely. Past experiences at UC Berkeley, along with the present struggles with entrenched encampments in Oakland, San Francisco, and New York City, led us to conclude that we must uphold our policy.
This decision is largely governed by practical, not philosophical, considerations. We are not equipped to manage the hygiene, safety, space, and conflict issues that emerge when an encampment takes hold and the more intransigent individuals gain control. Our intention in sending out our message early was to alert everyone that these activities would not be permitted. We regret that, in spite of forewarnings, we encountered a situation where, to uphold our policy, we were required to forcibly remove tents and arrest people.
We want to thank our student leaders, faculty, and community members who worked hard to maintain a peaceful context last night. We have been in discussions with the ASUC, Graduate Assembly, and other student leaders who have provided a number of alternative proposals for working with the student protesters. One such discussion led last night to our offering protesters the opportunity to use Sproul Plaza 24/7 for one week, as a venue for gathering and discussing the issues. However, we stipulated that no tents, stoves, and sleeping bags would be allowed. They could gather in Sproul for discussion, but not for sleeping. This was rejected by a vote of the mass of the protesters.
It is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms and forming a human chain to prevent the police from gaining access to the tents. This is not non-violent civil disobedience. By contrast, some of the protesters chose to be arrested peacefully; they were told to leave their tents, informed that they would be arrested if they did not, and indicated their intention to be arrested. They did not resist arrest or try physically to obstruct the police officers' efforts to remove the tent. These protesters were acting in the tradition of peaceful civil disobedience, and we honor them.
We regret that, given the instruction to take down tents and prevent encampment, the police were forced to use their batons to enforce the policy. We regret all injuries, to protesters and police, that resulted from this effort. The campus's Police Review Board will ultimately determine whether police used excessive force under the circumstances.
We call on the protesters to observe campus policy or, if they choose to defy the policy, to engage in truly non-violent civil disobedience and to accept the consequences of their decisions. We ask supporters of the Occupy movement to consider the interests of the broader community---the tens of thousands who elected not to participate in yesterday's events. We urge you to consider the fact that there are so many time-tested ways to have your voices heard without violating the one condition we have asked you to abide by.
Robert J. Birgeneau, Chancellor
George Breslauer, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
Harry LeGrande, Vice Chancellor for Studies Affairs
Dear Chancellor Birgeneau,
Until I received your email, I have been a fairly passive supporter of those who are protesting the effects of cuts in education and hikes in tuition. Despite my lack of action, I have appreciated the efforts of others and felt somewhat guilty that I have not made the time to be more active.
But your email defending the actions of the police and vilifying the protesters demands a response and here is mine:
1. Complimenting one group at the expense of another with similar goals--albeit different tactics--is a way to attempt to change the subject, to divide those groups and co-opt part of a concerned community.
I am deeply disappointed that you chose to do so. This university has deep academic resources that could be used for the common good. Administrators, faculty, and students could all work together to change our current culture to one that supports education, to make the case for public universities, colleges, and community colleges being a common good. I suspect you would respond that you are attempting to do exactly that, but hat is not what I have observed over the past several years, nor does this last email convey any sense that that is your goal. Rather, your email is defensive, self-justifying, and accusatory. It is not the email I would expect from a leader of the whole community.
2. I am appalled at your definition of civil disobedience. Since when is linking arms an act of violence? And to argue that because students linked arms, police were "forced" to use their batons? Please! This is the same reasoning I heard from my children when one justified punching the other because she made a mean face. I expect far more from the chancellor of a major university.
3. DO NOT EVER assume that the thousands of students who were not present were not supportive. You have no evidence that those not present supported your action; you only know that they were not present. So let me assure you that in at least one case--mine--my absence from the demonstration was not because I supported you. I wasn't there for many reasons: I live far away, my husband wasn't thrilled with the idea, it was late, I should be writing (always), etc.
All these reasons boil down to this: I was simply willing to let others act on my behalf. So do not read my absence as support for your very flawed policy. And understand: I do not speak for anyone else in this. Kindly extend the same courtesy to others who did not attend .
Chancellor, I absolutely believe that you are trying your best in a very difficult situation. But you are missing opportunities to effect change. Please find a way to let other perspectives in. Find a way to walk onto Sproul Plaza and talk with those who are asking difficult questions in ways of which you disapprove. I do believe we all have the same goal. You are the leader--I ask that you lead, rather than divide.
As you know, yesterday an effort was made to establish an encampment on Sproul Plaza, by the "Occupy Cal" movement. This followed and marred the aftermath of an impressive, peaceful noontime rally on Sproul on behalf of public education, which was attended by some 3,000 participants and observers, including many campus leaders. We compliment the organizers and speakers for setting an example of peaceful protest and mobilization. As we informed the campus community earlier this week, we understand and share the concern of the Occupy movement about the extreme concentration of wealth in US society and the steady disinvestment in public higher education by California and other States.
We want to clarify our position on "no encampments" so you better understand why we do not allow this to occur on our campus. When the no-encampment policy was enacted, it was born out of past experiences that grew beyond our control and ability to manage safely. Past experiences at UC Berkeley, along with the present struggles with entrenched encampments in Oakland, San Francisco, and New York City, led us to conclude that we must uphold our policy.
This decision is largely governed by practical, not philosophical, considerations. We are not equipped to manage the hygiene, safety, space, and conflict issues that emerge when an encampment takes hold and the more intransigent individuals gain control. Our intention in sending out our message early was to alert everyone that these activities would not be permitted. We regret that, in spite of forewarnings, we encountered a situation where, to uphold our policy, we were required to forcibly remove tents and arrest people.
We want to thank our student leaders, faculty, and community members who worked hard to maintain a peaceful context last night. We have been in discussions with the ASUC, Graduate Assembly, and other student leaders who have provided a number of alternative proposals for working with the student protesters. One such discussion led last night to our offering protesters the opportunity to use Sproul Plaza 24/7 for one week, as a venue for gathering and discussing the issues. However, we stipulated that no tents, stoves, and sleeping bags would be allowed. They could gather in Sproul for discussion, but not for sleeping. This was rejected by a vote of the mass of the protesters.
It is unfortunate that some protesters chose to obstruct the police by linking arms and forming a human chain to prevent the police from gaining access to the tents. This is not non-violent civil disobedience. By contrast, some of the protesters chose to be arrested peacefully; they were told to leave their tents, informed that they would be arrested if they did not, and indicated their intention to be arrested. They did not resist arrest or try physically to obstruct the police officers' efforts to remove the tent. These protesters were acting in the tradition of peaceful civil disobedience, and we honor them.
We regret that, given the instruction to take down tents and prevent encampment, the police were forced to use their batons to enforce the policy. We regret all injuries, to protesters and police, that resulted from this effort. The campus's Police Review Board will ultimately determine whether police used excessive force under the circumstances.
We call on the protesters to observe campus policy or, if they choose to defy the policy, to engage in truly non-violent civil disobedience and to accept the consequences of their decisions. We ask supporters of the Occupy movement to consider the interests of the broader community---the tens of thousands who elected not to participate in yesterday's events. We urge you to consider the fact that there are so many time-tested ways to have your voices heard without violating the one condition we have asked you to abide by.
Robert J. Birgeneau, Chancellor
George Breslauer, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
Harry LeGrande, Vice Chancellor for Studies Affairs
Dear Chancellor Birgeneau,
Until I received your email, I have been a fairly passive supporter of those who are protesting the effects of cuts in education and hikes in tuition. Despite my lack of action, I have appreciated the efforts of others and felt somewhat guilty that I have not made the time to be more active.
But your email defending the actions of the police and vilifying the protesters demands a response and here is mine:
1. Complimenting one group at the expense of another with similar goals--albeit different tactics--is a way to attempt to change the subject, to divide those groups and co-opt part of a concerned community.
I am deeply disappointed that you chose to do so. This university has deep academic resources that could be used for the common good. Administrators, faculty, and students could all work together to change our current culture to one that supports education, to make the case for public universities, colleges, and community colleges being a common good. I suspect you would respond that you are attempting to do exactly that, but hat is not what I have observed over the past several years, nor does this last email convey any sense that that is your goal. Rather, your email is defensive, self-justifying, and accusatory. It is not the email I would expect from a leader of the whole community.
2. I am appalled at your definition of civil disobedience. Since when is linking arms an act of violence? And to argue that because students linked arms, police were "forced" to use their batons? Please! This is the same reasoning I heard from my children when one justified punching the other because she made a mean face. I expect far more from the chancellor of a major university.
3. DO NOT EVER assume that the thousands of students who were not present were not supportive. You have no evidence that those not present supported your action; you only know that they were not present. So let me assure you that in at least one case--mine--my absence from the demonstration was not because I supported you. I wasn't there for many reasons: I live far away, my husband wasn't thrilled with the idea, it was late, I should be writing (always), etc.
All these reasons boil down to this: I was simply willing to let others act on my behalf. So do not read my absence as support for your very flawed policy. And understand: I do not speak for anyone else in this. Kindly extend the same courtesy to others who did not attend .
Chancellor, I absolutely believe that you are trying your best in a very difficult situation. But you are missing opportunities to effect change. Please find a way to let other perspectives in. Find a way to walk onto Sproul Plaza and talk with those who are asking difficult questions in ways of which you disapprove. I do believe we all have the same goal. You are the leader--I ask that you lead, rather than divide.