![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
I live by the stadium and was introduced to the campaign to save the oaks because I used to walk or bike by them on my way to school every day. When the first fence went up, I had to change my route -- I could no longer walk through the grove (or sit in it), and I could no longer bike on the path on the eastern side of the grove because the fence obstructed that, too. I miss walking through there freely, and I miss the peace I used to find there. The power of the UC to act in opposition to the feelings of the community (in my case, the campus community and the community of the surrounding neighborhood) without any substantial dialog saddens and frightens me.
Open Letter to Chancellor Birgeneau
by Emma Fazio, Jessica Karadi, Christina Oatfield and Marcella Sadlowski (11-16-07)
Dear Chancellor Birgeneau,
Last year, prior to the start of the tree-sit protest at Memorial Oak Grove, hundreds of students and community members delivered to your office stacks of petitions signed by thousands of concerned citizens, students, staff, and faculty asking you to help save the oaks and build the new training facility in an alternate location so that we could all achieve a positive outcome. We asked for a meeting with you to discuss the matter. We never received a response.
Since that time, the dispute has escalated into a major confrontation that has garnered international media attention and polarized our community. In the absence of dialogue, protestors have dug in their heels to protect a beloved space that is sacred to many people (especially the Native community), while the UCPD has escalated its actions and arrests.
Recently, UC announced its intent to forcibly extract the tree-sitters. As the history of tree-sit protests makes clear, extraction is very dangerous for all parties and involves serious risk of injury or death. At least one of the long-term tree-sitters is a UC Berkeley student. That people's lives are in jeopardy must be of enormous concern to everyone.
Regardless of the litigation outcome, we support the tree-sitters protecting the grove until UC chooses to pursue an alternate location for the training facility. We also want to hear what you have to say and we hope that through constructive dialogue understandings will be reached, solutions will be found, and conflict will be transformed.
We request an in-person meeting with you as soon as possible. We understand that ASUC President Van Nguyen attempted to initiate a community dialogue on this matter in September, and you declined because of the pending litigation. As you know, the judge is expected to render her verdict any day. When she does, no matter how she rules we ask you to meet with us as well as other concerned parties, such as UC administrators, the UCPD, representatives of the tree-sit protest, and Berkeley city residents. We request that an unaffiliated, neutral third party facilitate the meeting. We believe that the Chancellor of a public university has a responsibility to hold dialogue with students and community members about important matters, even (or especially) when he disagrees with their views. Considering that the oak grove protest has the potential to literally become a matter of life and death, we hope you will seize this opportunity to engage in a constructive dialogue. The worst that can happen is such a meeting will not change anything. We hope that at a minimum we will emerge with more respect for each other's perspectives, and in the best-case scenario we can cooperate to prevent the loss of life and limbs and develop creative solutions.
Recently, Cal public affairs director Dan Mogulof stated, "We are going to leave no stone unturned in an effort to find a peaceful solution to this situation." That's only possible with real dialogue.
Current conflicts in the world teach us that when violence is used to resolve a conflict, everyone suffers. Let's set a better example for our community and the world.
Let's talk.
Emma Fazio, Jessica Karadi, Christina Oatfield, and Marcella Sadlowski are UC Berkeley students and members of the Free Speech Free Trees Student coalition (www.freespeechfreetrees.org).
by Emma Fazio, Jessica Karadi, Christina Oatfield and Marcella Sadlowski (11-16-07)
Dear Chancellor Birgeneau,
Last year, prior to the start of the tree-sit protest at Memorial Oak Grove, hundreds of students and community members delivered to your office stacks of petitions signed by thousands of concerned citizens, students, staff, and faculty asking you to help save the oaks and build the new training facility in an alternate location so that we could all achieve a positive outcome. We asked for a meeting with you to discuss the matter. We never received a response.
Since that time, the dispute has escalated into a major confrontation that has garnered international media attention and polarized our community. In the absence of dialogue, protestors have dug in their heels to protect a beloved space that is sacred to many people (especially the Native community), while the UCPD has escalated its actions and arrests.
Recently, UC announced its intent to forcibly extract the tree-sitters. As the history of tree-sit protests makes clear, extraction is very dangerous for all parties and involves serious risk of injury or death. At least one of the long-term tree-sitters is a UC Berkeley student. That people's lives are in jeopardy must be of enormous concern to everyone.
Regardless of the litigation outcome, we support the tree-sitters protecting the grove until UC chooses to pursue an alternate location for the training facility. We also want to hear what you have to say and we hope that through constructive dialogue understandings will be reached, solutions will be found, and conflict will be transformed.
We request an in-person meeting with you as soon as possible. We understand that ASUC President Van Nguyen attempted to initiate a community dialogue on this matter in September, and you declined because of the pending litigation. As you know, the judge is expected to render her verdict any day. When she does, no matter how she rules we ask you to meet with us as well as other concerned parties, such as UC administrators, the UCPD, representatives of the tree-sit protest, and Berkeley city residents. We request that an unaffiliated, neutral third party facilitate the meeting. We believe that the Chancellor of a public university has a responsibility to hold dialogue with students and community members about important matters, even (or especially) when he disagrees with their views. Considering that the oak grove protest has the potential to literally become a matter of life and death, we hope you will seize this opportunity to engage in a constructive dialogue. The worst that can happen is such a meeting will not change anything. We hope that at a minimum we will emerge with more respect for each other's perspectives, and in the best-case scenario we can cooperate to prevent the loss of life and limbs and develop creative solutions.
Recently, Cal public affairs director Dan Mogulof stated, "We are going to leave no stone unturned in an effort to find a peaceful solution to this situation." That's only possible with real dialogue.
Current conflicts in the world teach us that when violence is used to resolve a conflict, everyone suffers. Let's set a better example for our community and the world.
Let's talk.
Emma Fazio, Jessica Karadi, Christina Oatfield, and Marcella Sadlowski are UC Berkeley students and members of the Free Speech Free Trees Student coalition (www.freespeechfreetrees.org).
November 18 2007, 20:40:57 UTC 4 years ago
So, this is self contradictory. If you say "we'll stay here until you give in", that makes dialogue impossible. If you want to actually have consensus, and discussion, and an equitable process, there's a way to get it-- the law. A court case is funamentally a way of providing a structured, nonviolent forum for discussion, mediation, and resolution of disputes. A competant court ruled that the protestors must go. If you want dialogue and nonviolent resolution, you should obey the law and the outcome of legal process. If you say in advance "we'll do what we want, no matter what", then there's nothing to discuss.
The endangerment thing is a red herring. The protestors are basically resorting to the rather childish trick of saying "we'll hurt ourselves if you don't do what we want." This is blackmail, and the university is right to resist. Endangering yourself does not impose moral duties on others.
Imagine, for a moment, that instead of protestors in trees, we had pro-life activists chaining themselves to abortion clinics. Most of us would be happy to see them dragged off, even if it meant risking injury to them. This case is comparable.
November 18 2007, 20:47:04 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 18 2007, 21:08:44 UTC 4 years ago
November 19 2007, 01:57:43 UTC 4 years ago
"Considering that the oak grove protest has the potential to literally become a matter of life and death, we hope you will seize this opportunity to engage in a constructive dialogue. The worst that can happen is such a meeting will not change anything. We hope that at a minimum we will emerge with more respect for each other's perspectives, and in the best-case scenario we can cooperate to prevent the loss of life and limbs and develop creative solutions."
Maybe if this happened, even if the judge rules that Cal can cut down the oaks, the fact that the UC made an effort to hear the protestors' position would convince the tree-sitters to come down without extraction. Maybe...
And I think that the supporters of the oaks see the grove as more than just "landscaping". I do.
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 18 2007, 21:17:16 UTC 4 years ago
As far as I know, the UCPD has no plans to remove anyone by force. Their current plan is one used by centuries of military strategists to force a surrender without casualties -- erect a barrier and cut off food supply. Calling this solution violent is just the beginning of the ridiculous claims already put forth by the protesters.
Let's not forget the cost of the fences being erected and the loss of UCPD personnel dedicated to watching these tree folks. If you want to argue for the students, at least consider it from an economic point of view. Tens of thousands (that second fence cost $80,000 alone) are being funneled to just to watch over the protesters. Millions more are lost in litigation costs. These are dollars that we as students should be receiving to fund our education -- not to fight the soapbox that a few ridiculous people have chosen as their way of attention whoring.
November 18 2007, 21:26:42 UTC 4 years ago
Things will get ugly.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 19 2007, 00:46:28 UTC 4 years ago
Let's start the dialogue here.
i recently went to the grove to chat with the tree sitters. the money quote was: "the whole world is losing trees. when new orleans was destroyed, thousands of trees were destroyed too. and we have to do something about that." i responded by saying "when i think of new orleans, i think of all the people who lost their homes and jobs, not trees." to which she replied, "the people are important too. they're both equally important."i gave an honest go at talking with at least five of the people there, and i for the life of me couldn't see how their cause is reasonable.
we can start dialogue here. tell us why should we care about an oak grove on campus over a new sports training facility.
November 19 2007, 02:21:01 UTC 4 years ago
I'm attempting to start
I think statements like that are distilled from more complex critiques of capitalism, industrialism, development practices, &c. in a way that is over-simplified and does not do justice to the potential power of a protest like this.I agree with you; it makes no sense at all to equate the loss of trees from a natural (or semi-natural) disaster with the loss of human lives in same disaster, with the potential removal of an urban grove of oak trees. However, I do think that we should care about trees -- and the tree-sitters and oaks-supporters should challenge themselves to defend their position in ways that do not appeal to the anthropomorphization of trees.
If you don't want the trees to be cut down because you like the oak grove, I think that's okay, and you should say that (I will start: I don't want Memorial Grove to be cut down in part simply because I like it). It's legitimate, in my opinion, just as it would be legitimate to form a protest against the erection of, say, a strip mall in your neighborhood, which is, it could be argued, an aesthetic point. Whether that defense alone warrants a tree-sit protest of this scale is debatable.
This tree-sit has more significance to me than that, though. The question of preserving an oak grove vs. building a new sports training facility is a question wrapped up in questions of how much the UC should expand into the community, and what its duties are to the community and to the environment. In what cases is the UC justified in destroying open space and/or "natural" environment in order to add a building there? In what cases is the UC justified in ignoring the wishes of community members? Should the UC raze whatever grows on a particular plot of land simply because the land is conveniently located? Are there other options (www.savecaloaks.com claims so)?
While the tree sitter's money quote you provided is not a good defense of those trees, I believe that trees *are* important. How we define our (humans') relationship with nature has a lot to do with how we define human subjectivity vs. animality, has a lot to do with how we define what is natural vs. what is artificial, has a lot to do with what acts we as a species or as a society deem acceptable and just, both toward the environment (which is not separate from us but includes us) and towards fellow humans. Discourses of the natural in the past legitimized sexism and racism, genocide and colonization. I am not equating the destruction of an oak grove to the destruction of people -- of even a single person -- but I will maintain that the same ideas can legitimize both things.
The neoliberal corporate privatization of the world, the regulation of space (through corporate ownership and through surveillance), and human's increasingly obvious and larger-scale effects on the natural world (think global warming, dams and associated destruction, mining and associated destruction, &c.) are of deep concern to me. So for me the destruction of the oak grove could be a symptom of such larger troubling trends, and the oak grove a local site at which we could politically dispute the control of the earth. In no way am I arguing that civilization is bad and "nature" is good -- but I also think that we should consider the aforementioned issues before converting an open, quiet space with trees in it into another building. I think we should ask ourselves what kind of civilization we want and how we want to treat the natural.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 19 2007, 02:23:58 UTC 4 years ago
November 19 2007, 02:26:51 UTC 4 years ago
Just kidding.
http://www.bartleby.com/68/17/1817.h
4 years ago
November 19 2007, 02:50:34 UTC 4 years ago
1) I think that a logical solution would be that for every tree that is cut down, the UC pays for 1 acre of rainforest preservation. That's cheap, and it protects more productive environment (ie, things other than squirrels) and more trees. Done. But the tree-sitters wouldn't like this, I'm sure. They've become emotionally invested.
2) Why do we care about this? I mean, honestly. I think the best argument either way is "the trees look pretty and enough of my tuition is wasted on people throwing balls around". If you want to spend money, why not, say, improve the equipment in the physics labs. Get more janitors and get the bathrooms and such clean. Etcetera.
3) If you *really* have to spend money on sports, don't waste it on the football team that already gets free rides. Make an indoor field or something for club/intramural sports. That's still wasteful, albeit less so.
4) I know people that live up in that area. Crime has gone up since the tree-sitters have taken residence. Very classy. I hold little respect for them when they do that.
5) There is no such thing on a dialogue for something like this. "Dialogue" means "screaming contest".
6) You know how this will end. The tree-sitters will keep coming back until they win some court case (because the UC has to follow the law instead of just complaining when the law doesn't agree with it), or until they harrass the UC into backing down, which is wrong.
7) Lastly, its the damn UC's property. Its not anyone elses. It is under the adminstration of the regents. Live with it.
November 19 2007, 03:21:34 UTC 4 years ago
((not being argumentative, because I am mostly in agreement. Just clarifying those points to uh, point out how even the most pertinent possible arguments don't stand up in this case))
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 19 2007, 04:28:55 UTC 4 years ago
November 19 2007, 07:08:41 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 19 2007, 05:41:19 UTC 4 years ago
November 19 2007, 07:07:48 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
November 19 2007, 05:47:02 UTC 4 years ago
My rant:
IMO, the whole thing is kind of an emotionally-charged psycho negotiation. But at heart, it's a negotiation.
As pointed out, this is a demand letter disguised as a letter for dialog. While I do support bringing influential parties from both sides to the negotiation table, what's screwy about this letter is that, in fact, the last thing the tree-sitters want (given their demands) is an honest negotiation.
The first rule of negotiation is knowing what you really want; and this is where the tree-sitters are blinded by rhetoric. That money-quote chasingred described (equating trees and humans or whatnot) is merely a result of that; I doubt they actually believe that human life is equal to a tree (or hope they don't?). Mainly, in their minds, they have painted anything less than full capitulation by the University as failure. The real money-quote of the letter is, as pointed out, "help save the oaks and build the new training facility in an alternate location" -- this is their sole victory condition.
On the University's side, they would very much like to build the facility in that location. They have money for it (private, whatever -- that's a whole other kettle of fish) and it is, in fact, their land. It was their land when they planted the trees in the first place.
IMO, the legal high ground is entirely on the side of the University. Even free speech has it's limits; I'm not up on my constitutional law, but an argument could certainly be made for the tree-sitters posing a clear and present danger or even imminent lawless action. ESPECIALLY now that the courts have gotten involved and ruled that the tree sitters should leave. IMO, they by all means have the right to stomp around campus, distribute flyers, write open letters like this one, etc... content should be free, they should push the limits of where and how they distribute it -- and they did! (kudos from a free-speech perspective) -- but they've clearly crossed the boundary here.
November 19 2007, 05:47:59 UTC 4 years ago
So really, the negotiation comes down to a moral argument instead of a legal one. Again, I'd say the tree-sitters are blinded into a false dichotomy. What they don't realize is that they could "win" the moral argument without keeping the trees. And this is where the negotiation *could* take place -- hammering out some environmentalist agreement, limited mainly by their imaginations and staying within reason. Revitalize the Eucalyptus Grove (and make it safe -- hell, with all the UCPD watching the tree sitters....). Negotiate a UCB effort to study some environmental problem. Get some money thrown toward rainforests (as someone suggested). Hell, transplant a few of these so-called old-growth trees to somewhere else on campus. Any number of possibilities.
And I betcha the University would come to the table on *that* one, because let's consider the weapons for each side:
Right now, the tree-sitters have:
* Endurance
* A higher "moral" starting ground from the public opinion
* Scare tactics, threats
* Liability/Danger Threats
* Position (they're called tree-sitters for a reason)
The University has, in broad terms:
* Money (ours, some of it)
* Influence
* UCPD
* A growing public opinion
* Time
What I'm suggesting is that the tree-siters give up their threats and position for money and influence. Everybody wins, noone gets hurt, the building goes up in a legal way, and the tree sitters win a moral victory.
As suggested, the tree-sitters will lose in the long run if they maintain their current strategy. The UCPD will attrition them out of the trees (ancient art of siege) and the people will shun them, and favor the resolution of the conflict in favor of the university and the public interest.
When they sat in the trees for a month, they had a much higher public opinion than they do now, after being in the trees a year. That would have made their bargaining position better, had they gone for the moral victory as soon as the legal one was even tipping to the side of the University. Now, the more scary they become, the more blind rhetoric they spew, the more trouble they cause, the more the public will come to distrust them. It'll seem as though the tree-sitters are against progress, their moral argument shattered.
They should negotiate while the negotiation is good, because it'll be a smaller and smaller victory as time goes on.
(Disclaimer: Personally, I started pretty neutral; I don't like the idea of so much emphasis being put on throwing a ball around, but then again, it doesn't affect me too much. The trees are nice, sure, but the rhetoric around them is kinda nuts. I was okay with a protest and tree-sitting until it became a problem (a line crossed a long time ago))
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 19 2007, 07:21:52 UTC 4 years ago
... section break ...
In my opinion, the University has every right to plow down the oaks and plant new ones later. Evidence: they planted those same trees less than a century ago, the land is legally owned by the university, student opinion strongly supports the facility upgrades, and the following:
There is no out of the ordinary sacredness around the University Oak Groves that should stop construction. If one wants to call attention to the fact that ancestors of local Native American tribes once dwelled on the grove, then we'd be in deep shit when any other construction went up. Why? Because Native peoples lived (and continue to live) all over this state, once migrated according to seasons and availability of resources, and buried their dead on sites of convenience. Death and spiritual blessings make all sites sacred, making it possible for someone to go so far as to say that all construction is destruction of sacred sites. But then where would we be? Yes, observing the views of a marginalized group, but reset in a system of ethnocentrism. We'd get nowhere, and this isn't good for a University that has to face competitive challenges to maintain an upkeep of provisions and reputation.
Anyone who knows me should know that I'm not a college football fan and identify as Native American. I'm not saying that this gives me any authority on the issue, but there is one position that does: A PAYING STUDENT and a tax-payer.
The letter you reference is not from a student, at least in any visible context. It is from a community member who pays city and state taxes that nowhere equal my tuition and taxes. Both sources of our expenses go to the upkeep of this University, but I feel that the student voice should carry a stronger weight.
I welcome your LJ post because you are a student and Berkeley community member, and I think you've done an excellent job of sparking true dialog. AND I await your comments... :)
November 20 2007, 00:07:42 UTC 4 years ago
I don't like football, either. And I like trees. And really, after hearing all the excellent points from the comments to this post that conflict in some way with my gut reaction of support for the tree-sit, I have come out with a much more complicated view of the whole issue. I think that my main feeling now is that the UC should have had greater input from the student population before this whole thing started. I agree -- the tree-sit is not facilitative of dialog, but the fact is that the UC itself did not initiate or participate in dialog with students.
4 years ago
November 19 2007, 10:51:02 UTC 4 years ago
The current facilities were built in 1923.
November 19 2007, 16:33:42 UTC 4 years ago
November 19 2007, 18:12:08 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
November 20 2007, 01:45:02 UTC 4 years ago
A lot of points
this project is hardly democratic. Did you elect the regents? (No.) Did you vote on the building of the sports facility? (No.) Has the rest of the Berkeley community, a large part of which DO NOT want the facility built there (or so it seems, been able to vote or participate in the decision-making for the project at all)? (No.) Did you get participate in choosing the location, which is the main issue in contention here (I love Cal football - I would love a new sports facility, there are just better places to put it!)? (No.) Will the facility be open to all of the public (even to poor people who can't afford private gyms)? (Not sure, but looking at the RSF, the libraries and the ther facilities on campus, probably not.) Where exactly in this project is the democracy of which you speak?As for corporatization/privatization: Technically, UC ISN'T exactly public land, it's private property of the Regents of the University of California, that's why you can get cited for trespassing on PRIVATE property (trust me, I know...I can show you my ticket if you want). Need I point out that the anti-tree sitter side is arguing both that it is "public land" and therefore democratic, as well as that it is UC's land, so they can do whatever they want? Also, who do you think will be building this project? A PRIVATE company will - one, in fact, with connections not only to the Iraq war, but also our illustrious "democratic representative" Regent Richard Blum. The company is called URS, and Blum sat on its board until 2005 (he was appointed as a regent in 2002) and was heavily invested in the company from 1997 to 2005 (as a majority shareholder, no less). Check out the posted article in comment number 4 at http://chronicle.com/news/article/3
That is why this project has to do with privatization: it is less about the sports facility and more about the millions of dollars the company will make (maybe they'll help Blum become president someday..or, in the short term, give campaign contributions to Blum's wife, Senator Fienstein, or maybe just slip him something under the table, if he doesn't have stock-options already) by building the facility and the millions of dollars UC will make from sports and sponsorship (from private companies) revenue after it is built (higher salaries/more bonuses for Chancellors/regents/UCpresident, anyone?).
When a public intitution of learning becmes more about making money for itself or its highest officials and their allies than actually TEACHING people, that is when we have to be really worried.
November 20 2007, 02:29:08 UTC 4 years ago Edited: November 20 2007, 02:58:33 UTC
Re: A lot of points
to your point about democracyi think your definition of democratic lacks rigor.
democracy shouldn't be taken only in the narrow definition of "rule by the people." thats the spirit of democracy, but it speaks little to the form.
it seems to me that the form you demand is direct voting. thus if something has been voted for directly for the people, then it is democratic; anything short of that isn't democratic. if you have such a miminalist definition of democracy, then guatamala between 1966 and 1981 and brazil between 1979 and 1981 would be considered democratic. at the same time, and even more troubling, almost no mass society would be considered democratic, as we have very few direct democratic institutions. much has been written about why direct democracy wouldn't be possible in mass societies. oscar wilde's quote on socialism might be most apt here, albeit adjusted for direct democracy: "the problem with socialism is that it takes up too many evenings." to be sure, there are other reasons why your insistence for direct democracy is a poor measure for mass society's democratic performance. first, mass societies have become too complex and are only getting more so with new technologies (everything from setting monetary policy to doling out of public R&D funds), thus we end up with more technocrats than democrats. second, our conception of liberty in the modern age usually entails spheres of private space away from public space. athenian democracy demanded participation from the polity, and as such actually had less civil rights for its voting citizenry. unless there are some private/ civil rights you'd be fine with giving up, direct democracy just isn't going to happen. third, in small communities, people have a real stake in the direction of votes since each vote counts more; it's unrealistic to expect this in mass societies. in fact, political scientists are troubled all the time with why single agents go out and vote when it clearly doesn't matter. fourth, the direct democracy you're talking about, on a meaningful social level, can probably be only seen in athens and small periods during the spanish, mexican, and french revolution. in those cases, the stakes were really high (war, death, etc). barring those stakes, in any size of polity, one shouldn't expect a meaningful direct democracy. lastly, in modern society, we have a lot more to distract ourselves with, and like wilde's comment about socialism, direct democracy would take too much time from those other things. the opportunity costs to participating are increasing while the returns are decreasing.
so to the issues you raise on democratic deficit. in the size of those stakes, in the size of the potential voters, in context of this mass society's conditioning, in the spirit of our modern conception of civil rights and liberty, it's unreasonable to expect direct democracy.
where is the democracy of which i speak? in representative democracy. at all the areas you brought up, there is representative democracy at work. the exception would be whether or not the facility would be open to the public, which isn't even a governance issue (and democracy is a governance issue just by greek definition). that's a usage issue, and representatives have rights to carve out usage rules. we can discuss all sorts of moral reasons for this, but at least on a practical ground, there is a danger of the tragedy of the commons that we need to regulate for. as an environmentalist, which i assume you are, you should be most aware of this.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 20 2007, 01:45:23 UTC 4 years ago
continued
As for arguments on why the grove should be saved, check out any save the oaks flyer:It is a memorial to citizens of California who died in WWI. (Would you like me to go knock down your relatives gravestones?)
It is a native American burial ground and sacred site. (Then, I'm going to go dig up your relatives bones and put a gym on top! You probably won't get to use it, but hey, you can watch the people who use it on TV.)
It is a wildlife corridor. (That means that those pretty little animals that we've displaced so much already travel through there to get to patches of "wilderness" without getting hit by cars.)
Oak trees are protected in cities all over the state of California (including Berkeley) because they are important to the public and part of our natural environment and ur heritage. What kind of precedent does it set where a public institution can go against the laws of the city where it is located (which just might reflect the wisshes f the citizens in that city, though I will admit not necessarily) and do whatever the hell it wants without any accountablity for its actions to the public? Hey, if state institutions can go against local ordinances, why can't private companies do it to?
As for "violence:" while I would argue that building a fence and attempting to STARVE people is an act of violence (and I wouldn't be alone in the assertion, fences as violence can be seen in the dialogue over and analysis of the US-Mexico Border, as well of the Wall in Palestine...not to mention critiques of private property, but that's niether here nor there.), I think the worry over injury hasm ore to do with forced extraction. And yes, that HAS been brought up by the University, and mentioned several times in the Daily Cal.
As for the protest itself being illegal: have you ever heard of civil disobedience? That's kinda the point...support the Free Speech Movement? How about the Civil Rights Movement? Protests against the Vietnam War? Or the against War on Iraq? All of those have broken the law through civil disobedience, because they feel that the laws or the actions they are protesting are unjust and therefore the law must be broken to fight them.
There are many more points I would love to make, but this post is lng enough as it is.
-T
November 20 2007, 02:50:52 UTC 4 years ago
Re: continued
"It is a memorial to citizens of California who died in WWI."this seems like a poor reason to me. i dont even see WWII families coming out here to fight for the oaks, nor do i think anyone even recognize the oaks as a memorial. seems like you're just throwing everything you can in.
"It is a native American burial ground and sacred site."
again, can't say i personally care too much. this seems like a value judgement, and personally, i and probably most berkeley students, don't care. you're the democrat (small d democrat i mean), so you kind of have to just respect most people don't care.
"It is a wildlife corridor."
again, i don't think the majority of students care. it's not even endangered species or anything. i say this even as a ten year vegan who used to fight for animal rights. when bbc headline today says "Aid battle for Bangladesh victims," i find it offensive that activists are fighting for squirrels.
"Oak trees are protected in cities all over the state of California (including Berkeley) because they are important to the public and part of our natural environment and ur heritage."
that law actually exempts public institutions. it was built in. it would cause all sorts of nonsensical rigidities if one was to say public institutions couldn't cut down oaks. think about the economic and political logic of that. plus, surprise memo to you - the state is more powerful than private corporations and citizens. that shouldn't be news.
"As for "violence:" while I would argue that building a fence and attempting to STARVE people is an act of violence"
i think thats a terrible definition of violence since the oak sitters can easily get out and feed themselves. i dont study violence, but it seems your definition again lacks rigor. walling people in east berlin during the cold war is different than walling people in an oak grove, just on measure of how easily the actors can exit.
"As for the protest itself being illegal: have you ever heard of civil disobedience?"
i never said they were lame just cause they were illegal. im all up for illegal activities. i just said the movement was stupid. and im pretty sure the consensus here on this board was that the protest was wrong because its stupid, not because its illegal.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 20 2007, 04:34:29 UTC 4 years ago
November 20 2007, 04:59:45 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
December 17 2009, 00:11:21 UTC 2 years ago
Protest $3 Million of Birgeneau Wasteful Spending!!!
$3 Million Extravagant Arrogant Spending by UC President Yudof for UCBerkeley Chancellor Birgeneau to Hire Consultants - When Consultants Work Can Be Done Internally.Save $3,000,000 for teaching students. Do the work internally with the resources of the UCB Academic Senate Leadership (C. Kutz/ F. Doyle), the world – class UCB faculty and staff, & UCB Chancellor’s bloated stable of staff (G. Breslauer, N. Brostrom, F. Yeary, P. Hoffman, C. Holmes etc) & President Yudof.
President Yudof has a UCB Chancellor that should do the high paid work he is paid for instead of hiring an East Coast consulting firm to do the work of his job. ‘World class’ smart executives like Chancellor Birgeneau need to do the analysis, hard work and make the difficult tough decisions to identify inefficiencies!
Where do consulting firms like Bain ($3,000,000 consultants) get their recommendations?
From interviewing the senior management that hired them and will be approving their monthly consultant fees and expense reports. Remember the nationally known auditing firm who said the right things and submitted recommendations that senior management wanted to hear and fooled government oversight agencies and the public?
Impartial consultants never bite the hands (Birgeneau/Yeary) that feed them.
Mr. Birgeneau's performance management accountabilities include "inspiring innovation and leading change." This involves "defining outcomes, energizing others at all levels and ensuring continuing commitment." Instead of demonstrating his leadership and setting an example by do the work of his senior management job, Mr. Birgeneau outsourced his work to consultants for $3,000,000. Doesn't he engage University of California and University of California Berkeley people at all levels to help examine the budget and recommend the necessary $150 million trims to inefficiencies? Hasn't he talked to Cornell and the University of North Carolina - which also hired Bain -- about best practices and recommendations that will result in UCB cuts to inefficiencies?
No wonder the faculty, staff, Senate & Assembly and Californians are angry and suspicious. Three million dollars is a high price for students and Californians to pay when a knowledgeable ‘world-class’ UCB Chancellor and his bloated staff are not doing the work of their jobs.