We can’t stop and we won’t stop

Attention students, faculty, staff and workers! As you very well know, the state of our university system is undergoing unprecedented changes. With fee and tuition increases continuing and more to come, with diversity ever more rapidly being diminished and with low-income and middle class families suffering more because they can’t afford a public education, we as a concerned population must stand in solidarity and organize collectively for public education.

This is a cry for your help against the austerity measures passed by the State of California. We are living in a time where simply calling your local elected official isn’t enough. We can no longer — if we ever could — trust our own UC regents and school officials to speak for us. We, as the people who make up the university, must start speaking for ourselves and acting for ourselves with all our might and with all our numbers.

Many of you upperclassmen who are reading this remember past protests like those held on Sept. 24 and Nov. 20 of 2009. On Sept. 24, 2009, students from UCs, CSUs and community colleges across the state organized together using a diversity of tactics and approaches and were heard across the country. This was especially true for our campus, where we had a powerful walk-out of over 5,000 people. On Nov. 20, 2009, thousands of students — students just like you and me — showed up in support of those who took over Wheeler Hall, the iconic pillared building we’re so used to filing in and out of hundreds of days a year.

We had the State of California’s ears. The politicians, the regents and other officials were listening to us not just as a group of students but as a mass of students, workers, faculty and community members organizing together through direct action. We have the potential to do this once again and so much more.

Every single one of you that attends this university got here because you were exceptional, because you believed in yourself and because you knew that you could be of some importance to this institution and the world. We must once again believe in ourselves, believe in the power of community and believe in your fellow students and colleagues. We must remember the strongest voice that Berkeley had seen in years, that voice of 2009. Most importantly, we must believe that we cannot only replicate that voice but make it even bigger.

I want to make this very clear: we cannot afford to be apathetic, and we cannot afford to give up — our losses far surmount our wins —but this is a struggle, and struggles are not won overnight.

Mario Savio once stood on Sproul Plaza and said: “There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious — makes you so sick at heart — that you can’t take part. You can’t even passively take part.” We are collectively going through a passive process right now, but we must, collectively, come out of this passive phase, because I and thousands more like me are truly sick at this point.

I am sick of hearing sad statistics of kids who would’ve come to Cal for had it not been for the rise in tuition and fees. I am sick of seeing a less diverse university when our state has become more diverse. I am sick of the countless other negative statistics affecting the population of California. I am tired of “business as usual.” We can do better than this. You personally may have not been affected by the recent tuition increase, or maybe you have been — either way it doesn’t matter. What we do all have, though, is compassion and common sense. Let’s use it. I promise you that change is possible, but only when we come together.

Please, I urge you to join me and hundreds of other students who are fed up with the way our institution is run, because EDUCATION IS NOT A PRIVILEGE — IT’S A RIGHT!

A large group of undergraduate and graduate students, campus staff and faculty have already begun working together against campus and state austerity and budget cuts. If you are tired of business as usual, come to this week’s organizing meeting on Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. at 2070 Allston Way (UAW Local 2685 Office) where we will decide our organizing priorities and how we will accomplish our goals toward the near future.

Marco Amaral is a student activist and junior at UC Berkeley.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

    [EDUCATION IS NOT A PRIVILEGE — IT’S A RIGHT!]

    It’s not a “right” when you have to forcefully take money from others to pay for it…

    • Hank

      In the 60′s, tuition was low but there was no financial aid for living expenses. People were expected to work, often more than one job, and live cheaply.

      Now, UC writes $12,000+ checks to ‘poor’ students for their living expenses. To do that, tuition is 50% higher than it would be without this ‘return to aid’, impoverishing middle-income students. Yet those same poor students self-report spending more on rent, cell-phones and recreation than either the middle-income or richest 1/3 do.

      Perhaps an education is a right. But getting others to pay for it is not a right, it’s just plain wrong.

      • Beatricedestroy

        What are you talking about? You obviously have no clue. The UC doesn’t pay for living expenses, not even the poorest students (and fuck you and your scare-quotes, as if poverty were somehow merely figurative). Pell Grants and Cal Grants barely cover tutition. The rest comes from student loans and jobs. And yes, most undergraduates work jobs.

        Get a clue or STFU.

        • Hank

          Love what you’ve done with that education that somebody else is (apparently) paying for.  Plan on taking any courses in reasoning? Since it comes further down in the alphabet than ‘invective’ (they’re not scare quotes when you’re referring to the work itself), perhaps you haven’t heard about reasoning yet.

          If you’re a UC student getting financial aid, you already know that your statements are wrong.  But honesty and advocacy are rarely linked at Berkeley.

          For everybody else, here are references:1) UC financial aid pays for the entire student budget, including “housing, food and utilities” and “personal expenses”. Seehttp://www.berkeley.edu/about/fact.shtml#fees2) The maximum that students are required to provide is the self-help level, currently $8k a year.  That’s both work _and_ student loans.  The rest of the $31k+ student aid is covered by Pell Grants and Cal Grants (which by definition cover tuition), and the UC return to aid. See:http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/documents/facts_budget_110811.pdf

          • Anonymous

            This is what one would call lying, not reasoning.  

            The minimum, not maximum, self-help level is 9k in loans, work, and parental contributions for someone whose family earns 20k/yr.  A family earning 80k/yr is expected to contribute ~21.3k in loans, work and income.  (2010 numbers)This means that the /maximum/ contribution in grant aid to a student’s personal expenses is ~7.6k/yr.  (Maximum in grant aid: 20.4k (2010 number).  Tuition: 12.8k (2011 number).

            I have no doubt even that amount offends your sensibilities, but let’s at least be honest so others can judge for themselves what is and isn’t reasonable.

            http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/paying-for-uc/financial-aid/grants/index.html

          • CalGrad

            No, the _self_help_ level is a maximum.  Every _student_ is expected to provide that much, but not more.  Parental help varies from $0 up to everything. Parental help is not the same as _self_ help.

            Cal’s self-help (which was $8600 two years ago, and I think has gone down) is less than the affordable level that UC established:  

            http://www.ucop.edu/sas/sfs/docs/regents_0910.pdf

            As to your math: An on-campus student with zero parent income has to come up with $8600 self-help. Aid is provided for the rest of the $32600 budget.  That’s a total of $24000 in aid. About half is Pell and Cal grants that cover tuition.  The rest is UC return-to-aid money that comes (mostly) from other students tuition and fees. That part goes to pay living expenses.  At least when I was a student, people who weren’t living the dorms got checks from that.

          • Anonymous

            I take your point on my misunderstanding of the self-help category, but I was explicit about what I counted.  

            Need unmet by grants relative to family income is more informative, regardless.  

            What a student contributes and what a parent contributes are ultimately decided by the family, not UC financial aid offices. 

            As to your attempt to derive the maximum amount of grant aid, the Cal-Aid calculator explicitly shows a maximum grant of <20k.  UCLA shows a maximum grant of <22k.  Your 24k number is a fantasy not in line with what campuses are actually awarding

            So, my final point stands.  The largest contribution in grant aid to personal and living expenses is simply the largest grant award minus tuition, which equals between 7-10k. 

      • Guest

        “Yet those same poor students self-report spending more on rent,
        cell-phones and recreation than either the middle-income or richest 1/3
        do.”

        Where on earth did you get that from?  You mean they spend a greater proportion of their income on these things?  Yes, when you are paying $800/month rent and making $15,000/year as compared with paying $800/month rent and making $150,000/year, that $800 is a larger % of $15,000 than it is $150,000. 

        And it makes no sense to say that education is a right, but getting others to pay for it is wrong.  In what sense is something a *right* if you’re only entitled to it to the extent you’re able to afford it?  It seems like you’re using the word “right” to mean “something that should exist.”  

        • Hank

          Berkeley really should require its students to learn a little American history.  They could start with reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Those established that rights are things that nobody can stop you from doing.  But it was up to you do to them.

          So yes, education could be a right: if you work, nobody can stop you from earning it.  That’s quite different from insisting that somebody hand it to you. That’s not a right, it’s an entitlement, which is quite a different thing.

          On the lesser point of spending, the lower-income students reported spending more dollars, not a larger fraction.  This wasn’t really a surprise, as they were spending their entire aid; it’s easier to spend somebody else’s money.  The numbers are from the most recent published student budget survey.  

          http://students.berkeley.edu/finaid/undergraduates/cost.htm

          • Guest

            Actually, Hank, when the Board of Regents sets the price of education higher than many students’ ability to pay, even when they are working full-time, this would be an example of people stopping you from doing something and hence, by your own definition, a violation of a right.

            Where in the link that you sent is there a breakdown of student spending by social class?  Especially with regard to the things you mention like cell phone plans and recreation?

          • Anonymous

            This is incoherent.  The IV through VII amendments all fit the definition of an entitlement, and as such are not rights, on your farcical reading.

            Rights can, and do, and pretty much always have, contained entitlements.

            (Entitlement to a warrant.  Entitlement to due process. Entitlement to trial by jury.  None of these are things you go and do for yourself.  They are things which the state /must/ give to you,  by right.)

    • Anonymous

      Funny, I could have sworn pretty much all the rights we had were guaranteed by ‘forcefully’ taking money from others to pay for it. You don’t have civil rights without a government to protect them. You don’t have a government to protect them without taxation (oh, sorry, should I be using crazy conservative language? Let’s call it ‘forcefully taking money from others to pay…’)

      • Hank

        You need to go learn what civil rights are.  Hint:  The bill of rights is about protecting the people from the government.  That’s why it has lines like “The Congress shall make no law…”

        • Anonymous

          And people are protected from the laws Congress makes by the courts, which are a branch of government, funded by taxes.  They do not generally protect themselves from the government by exercising the 2nd amendment (though I’m sure that’s how you’d prefer to do it).

          I’d say something snide about how you need to learn that Congress doesn’t constitute the entirety of the United States government, but then, oops, I already did it.

          One doesn’t even need to get to the point in a round about manner by noting how civil rights are chiefly protected through the courts, as the sixth amendment, in guaranteeing a right to a speedy trial by jury with counsel, by necessity implies the use of Article I Section 8 Clause 1 in order to administer said trial and make such a right effective.

          Since the justice system, to which citizens /right/fully have access, itself is funded by taxation, there is nothing inconsistent with redistribution of wealth and something being a right.

          So despite Tony M’s protestations, if education is a right, it does not stop being a right because taxes are levied to guarantee it.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

            [I'd say something snide about how you need to learn that Congress]

            I’m sure you would, given that is the style of so-called “progressives”, but you’re clearly the one who’s out of touch with reality. Genuine “rights” such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion can be exercised without depriving others of their right to do likewise. On the other hand, the “right” to confiscate someone else’s money obviously negates the other person’s right to spend that money as he or she sees fit. There’s a reason that the Founding Fathers placed limitations on government, and were insistent that taxation without proper representation was morally wrong. You need to learn something about the history of this country before you continue to make an absolute fool of yourself…

          • Anonymous

            Ah, so only the first amendment is a right

            Surely, I’m the one who needs to learn history.

            (And here I’ll ignore the long history of protection of the first amendment by the judicial branch of the /government/).

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

            [Ah, so only the first amendment is a right]

            Nobody said that it was the ONLY right. You’re being silly, the usual refuge for liberals and leftists who can’t win the argument based on facts and logic.

            You know, you really need to get out of Berkeley more often. It might give you a chance to learn that that cloistered little town full of nut-cakes and reality-challenged types is NOT the intellectual center of the universe…

          • Anonymous

            No, you didn’t say it was the only right.  You just cherry picked it as an example of a right which does not necessarily make demands on other individuals, while ignoring all the rights that do, and on the basis of this one example, deduced that all rights necessarily do not make demands on other individuals.

            You did all this, while other rights (like that of trial by jury) obviously require demands to be made on the behavior of others (hence state power to coerce one into serving on a jury).

            Such a form of argument is fallacious, hence my caricature of your position.

          • Anonymous

            No, you didn’t say it was the only right.  You just cherry picked it as an example of a right which does not necessarily make demands on other individuals, while ignoring all the rights that do, and on the basis of this one example, deduced that all rights necessarily do not make demands on other individuals.

            You did all this, while other rights (like that of trial by jury) obviously require demands to be made on the behavior of others (hence state power to coerce one into serving on a jury).

            Such a form of argument is fallacious, hence my caricature of your position.

          • Anonymous

            Ah yes, the progressive style, evidenced here by noted ‘progressives’ Hank and Tony condescending to tell people to read documents and study histories which, clearly, they themselves can barely even understand.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

            I understand enough about the US Constitution to know that income redistribution and the abrogation of individual property right, the long time wet dream of collectivists, is what the writers of the Constitution specifically tried to prevent by limiting the powers of the federal government. Now keep blathering away about what others allegedly don’t know, but you clearly don’t have a clue…

          • Anonymous

            Ah yes, what they explicitly tried to prevent by writing in the power to tax in Article 1 Section 8 in contradistinction to the Articles of Confederation, which granted no taxing power. 

            And, of course, they exercised this power in the form of a tarriff, which ‘abrogates individual property rights’ and ‘redistributes’ wealth from consumers to domestic producers and governments from day 1, when, on July 4th 1789, Congress passed its first substantive legislation in the form of the Tariff Act of 1789.

            But yes, please, continue to tell me how the US Constitution is fundamentally opposed to income redistribution and taxation, even while it explicitly provides for and requires it.

            I’d love for you to keep showing me how ignorant /I/ am.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

            [And, of course, they exercised this power in the form of a tarriff,
            which 'abrogates individual property rights' and 'redistributes' wealth
            from consumers to domestic producers and governments from day 1, when,
            on July 4th 1789, Congress passed its first substantive legislation in
            the form of the Tariff Act of 1789.]

            Once again, you’re babbling. The tariff act was levied on importers, and passed through Congress and singed by president Washington. It’s primary purpose was to fund the expenses of the federal government, NOT to effect any form of internal redistribution of wealth. As I pointed out elsewhere, you’re  pulling up little factoids here and trying to weave some some type of silly justification for your fellow traveler’s unilateral demands for punitive taxation. Sorry, your tactic doesn’t fly with those of us who know better…

          • Anonymous

            Please remember what this debate is about:

            “It’s not a “right” when you have to forcefully take money from others to pay for it…”

            And yet here you are admitting the federal government has the power to forcibly take money in order to fund its constitutionally mandated functions.

            Taxes to fund education no more aim to redistribute wealth than taxes to fund the federal government.

            In both cases wealth redistribution is incidental to the aim.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

        [Funny, I could have sworn pretty much all the rights we had were
        guaranteed by 'forcefully' taking money from others to pay for it.]

        Your ignorance of the US Constitution is clearly evident.

        • Anonymous

          Either explain to me how the government can ensure a right to a fair trial, due process of the law, public defense, and a jury without levying taxes, or kindly shut your mouth about my ignorance.

          And I quote…

          “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…  To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court”

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

            [Either explain to me how the government can ensure a right to a fair
            trial, due process of the law, public defense, and a jury without
            levying taxes]

            You’re being disingenuous, given that I never said that people shouldn’t pay taxes to pay for the legitimate costs of government. What you deliberately blur is the distinction between the legitimate functions of the federal government as specifically authorized in the Constitution (national defense, court systems) and the various and sundry social programs that serve the purpose of income redistribution, which are NOT the legitimate function of the government.

            Once again, YOUR ignorance on this subject is quite clear for all to see, so there’ s no need to tell me to shut up. I will continue to point out how your progressive/collectivist views blind your understanding of the US Constitution.

          • Anonymous

            And now you are making a substantive judgment from personal authority to declare what ‘rights’ incur ‘legitimate’ costs and accordingly what counts as a legitimate right.

            Marco was asserting that education is a legitimate cost of government because it is a legitimate right.

            You are asserting that education is not a legitimate right and is therefore not a legitimate cost.

            In neither case can we reason from something incurring costs to whether or not it is a right.

            We have to start with whether or not the right claimed is legitimate, which cannot, clearly, be decided solely on the basis of whether or not it incurs costs.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

            [Marco was asserting that education is a legitimate cost of government because it is a legitimate right.]

            Marco’s merely babbling, and so are you. Once again, who’s funding that education, and what right does Marco or anyone else have to unilaterally enforce increased taxation unless approved through the legislative process?

          • Anonymous

            Courts are constitutionally empowered to order legislatures to increase revenues, through taxation, in order to redress rights violations on the basis of precedent (MO v. Jenkins).  

            You can disagree with the precedent, but you can’t disagree with the present law of the land.

            But really, you aren’t grasping the simple analytical point.  A right can, by making a claim on conduct, create a duty to raise revenue, which implies a power to raise revenue.

            That power exists.

            So even if we leave out the courts, Californians, if they granted a right to an education, would have a duty to fund that education through the powers enabling them to do so.  If they failed to do so they would be abrogating rights by failing to do their duties.

            Please note that is a rhetorical point. I do not claim to describe the present situation.

          • Guest

            “if they granted a right to an education, would have a duty to fund that education’
            Dubious.  You have a “right” to religious practice, but the state isn’t going to build you a church.  If the state doesn’t fund public schools, you have a right to get education at a private one, at your own cost.

          • Anonymous

            Not all rights are the same.

            Not all rights are liberties, though all liberties are rights.  It’s really not very complex.

            When people talk about a right to an education, they are not saying that people are at liberty to pursue an education.  They are saying they have a right to be provided an education.

            I take this to be an uncontroversial point when it comes to 5 year old children, whose access to education should not depend on their own wealth, their parents wealth, or the wealth of a private benefactor.

            Clearly, it is not so uncontroversial when it comes to college.

          • Guest

            “they have a right to be provided an education”
            I doubt this.  Citizens have a right to establish a school district and open public schools.  The federal government cannot prevent this, but it doesn’t have to fund it.

          • Anonymous

            Notice that I said what people were arguing, not what was necessarily the case. Do you doubt that some people believe children have a right for their education to be provided by the state?

            And note that I have never said the Federal government is required to fund education (though I have said it is required to fund other things). I brought the federal government into this to illustrate a general property of rights – that it is not the case that rights cannot impose a duty to raise revenue.

            All I have been arguing is that if education is a right, it /can/ impose a duty to raise revenue.

            But let’s move out of the land of hypotheticals.

            Numerous /state/, not Federal, constitutions guarantee a /right/ to public k-12 education, and this right is not the liberty or privilege of ‘being able to establish a school district.’

            Obviously, that liberty is provided to the states and the people via Amendment X. But that there are more rights than those in the constitution is provided by Amendment IX.

            Let’s take a simple quote, from the Missouri constitution, because it’s effective:

            “A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law”

            Now, is there any way to “establish and maintain” without raising revenue?

            Another thing to note: education is compulsory in all 50 states: (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_165.asp).

            Remember, this is the substance of the argument:

            Marco: Education is a right, not a privilege.
            Tony M: Education cannot be a right because it requires wealth redistribution.
            Me: Requiring wealth redistribution does not prevent something from being considered a right.

            Everything I have written is an attempt to illustrate the incredibly basic and general point that rights /can/ require raising revenues.

          • Anonymous

            Now, if you want to talk about ignorance, you might recall a little thing called ‘states rights,’ enshrined in the Federal Constitution.Well, guess what, the people of California have decided that:”The right to a public education in California is a fundamental right fully guaranteed and protected by the California Constitution”, as affirmed in Serrano v. Priest I.

            Of course, that applies to k-12, not higher ed, but what matters is the principle:  education can be constitutionally grounded as a fundamental right, just like defense or access to due process or anything else.  

            You do not get to decide what counts as a right for an entire state, or an entire nation, on the basis of what you think is a legitimate use of your money and what you think isn’t.  That’s what happens when you live in a Democratic Republic.

            http://ag.ca.gov/publications/civilrights/01CRhandbook/chapter6.php#N_96_

          • Guest

            “The right to a public education in California is a fundamental right”
            This means that no student can be legally excluded from a public school.  It doesn’t mean that the State of California accepts financial responsibility for keeping the schools open.  Local school boards have that task, and if they have no money they close the schools, “rights” notwithstanding.

            As you say, higher education is optional, not mandatory, so its funding is no one’s absolute responsibility.

          • Anonymous

            Except the state does accept financial responsibility for keeping the schools open.  (Proposition 98.)

            Regardless, state courts can order tax increases (cf. New Jersey), as can Federal courts (cf. MO v Jenkins).

            This talk of rights incapable of being enforced may apply in failed states, but despite conservative efforts to the contrary, we do not quite yet live in one of those.

          • Guest

            “accept financial responsibility for keeping the schools open.  (Proposition 98.)”
            Prop 98 applies only to schools that students are mandated to attend.  That excludes all higher education.

          • Anonymous

            you referred to ‘the schools,’ not ‘the universities,’ in an effort to make the point that California does not accept financial responsibility for schools and that it is a responsibility solely of /municipalities./  This is incorrect.

            Please, understand what you yourself are saying before you remind me of what I have said.

            The argument is, and continues to be, about whether or not, if public education is a right, it entails a duty to fund public education.

            States have empirically given themselves such a duty,  courts have empirically found such a duty to exist, and legal theorists have found positive duties to be an integral part of  large swathes of rights claims.

          • Anonymous

            you referred to ‘the schools,’ not ‘the universities,’ in an effort to make the point that California does not accept financial responsibility for schools and that it is a responsibility solely of /municipalities./  This is incorrect.

            Please, understand what you yourself are saying before you remind me of what I have said.

            The argument is, and continues to be, about whether or not, if public education is a right, it entails a duty to fund public education.

            States have empirically given themselves such a duty,  courts have empirically found such a duty to exist, and legal theorists have found positive duties to be an integral part of  large swathes of rights claims.

          • Guest

            “States have empirically given themselves such a duty”
            Then how do you explain school closures?

          • Anonymous

            Show me a school closure which prevented a child from attaining a public education, and you’ll have found an actionable court case.

          • Anonymous

            I took Marco to be stating what should be.

            Tony has made a claim about what can be.

            This whole inane sub debate is about whether higher education can be a right, which Tony has denied, citing the fact that it would require taxation.

            I am not arguing that higher education is a right, I am arguing that it can be. 

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

            [Now, if you want to talk about ignorance, you might recall a little
            thing called 'states rights,' enshrined in the Federal
            Constitution.Well, guess what, the people of California have decided
            that:"The right to a public education in California is a fundamental
            right fully guaranteed and protected by the California Constitution", as
            affirmed in Serrano v. Priest I.]

            You clearly have no understanding of the meaning of the Tenth Amendment, which established that functions not explicitly outlined and mandated in the US Constitution were to be the province of state/local government, OR the people. You need to learn the meaning of “focus” and “relevancy” when engaging in discussion with grown adults, instead of tossing in  every little shred or snippet that you come across, merely because it might sound superficially related to your argument…

          • Anonymous

            You seem to be operating under the laughable assumption that only the US Constitution can enumerate rights.

            I quoted Article X because it gives states the power to enact rights not in contravention of the Constitution

            Individual states can, and do, enumerate rights in excess of the Constitution.

            One of these rights is, in the case of California, a right to an education.

            If you can’t see how state-level enactment of a right to education is relevant to a debate on whether or not education can be a right, then you are hopeless.

      • Guest

        “You don’t have civil rights without a government to protect them.”
        This isn’t quite accurate.  When government enacts civil rights, citizens have them.  Some citizens may be prevented from exercising those rights, but they exist in law.  The purpose of the federal laws was to overturn previous legislation that denied rights to some citizens.  Enforcement of the laws is separate from the establishment of a right.

        • Anonymous

          And establishment of a right is meaningless without enforcement of the law.

          Pointing out that I can have something without being able to exercise it or use it is very clever.

          Unfortunately, it’s not anything more than clever.

          • Guest

            The constitution and the laws don’t guarantee funding for anything.  Rights exist as a legal construct, not an unlimited gift.  Law enforcement is contingent on solvency and an approved budget.

          • Anonymous

            Yet they guarantee the power to fund, and they guarantee legal recourse against the state up to and including a right of lien on that power in order to secure those rights.

            It is /possible/ that the US is a state completely incapable of providing that which it constitutionally guarantees its citizens, but that makes it a failed state, and in failed states I’m not sure talk of civil rights is meaningful in the least.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

            [It is /possible/ that the US is a state completely incapable of providing that which it constitutionally guarantees its citizens]

            It’s also possible that you’re foaming semi-coherently about subjects (such as the US Constitution) and concepts which you clearly do not understand. Come back when you have educated yourself in this area, and you can discuss this subject in an intelligent manner instead of using meaningless psycho-babble as a substitute for reasoning…

          • Guest

            “providing that which it constitutionally guarantees its citizens”
            The state is constituted of its citizens.  They decide what they will pay for government functions.  There is no guarantee of funds.

          • Anonymous

            I didn’t said /funds/ were guaranteed.  I said /rights/ and /powers/ were guaranteed.  But apparently you’re not quite clever enough to pick up on such distinctions?

            Funds are required, not guaranteed, because legal and constitutional requirements guarantee nothing.

            The citizenry /as a whole/ is perfectly capable of violating the rights of citizens /as individuals/ by abdicating its duties, which it does when it refuses to raise revenue to support the necessary functioning of government.

            In such a situation the state has, quite simply, failed, because it is failing to meet the duties  it is constitutionally required and empowered to perform.

          • Guest

            I was simply stating that citizens have rights whether or not laws are enforced.  I don’t want to debate whether politicians have a duty to provide money for every program and issue.

          • Anonymous

            Well that’s fine, because by definition, rights (of conduct) entail duties, so there is no debate to be had.  If an issue is a right (of conduct), there is a duty.  This duty can be trumped or ignored, but it still exists.

            I am not interested in debating whether or not any particular issue is a right either.  Only that rights can, and often do, entail duties which can include a duty to raise revenue.

          • Guest

            “If an issue is a right (of conduct), there is a duty.”
            Where do you find such a definition?  This sounds so vague that I doubt it has any official standing.

          • Anonymous

            Rights entailing duties is a simple logical consequence of what it means to be a right. 

            Take any example of a right, other than a right to do something like hold a belief privately, and it will entail duties – most generally, a duty not to violate the right in question.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

    You self-styled “student activists” are nauseating. You keep whining and demanding that others give more and more – even when people are unemployed, losing their homes, and leaving California because they simply can’t afford to live here anymore. Word to Marco: the taxpayers of this state are getting fed up, and I’m one of them. What part of THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS BROKE do you NOT understand?

  • Guest

    Marco, if you’re hoping to become a demagogue, you need to hone your language skills.  For instance, do you understand the meaning of “cannot”?

    And note that student demonstrations in 2009 didn’t persuade the legislature to restore a single dollar to UC’s budget.

    • Anonymous

      Whether it’s ignorance, deception, or misinformation, your comments are not very becoming.

      “While scores of state services have been reduced or eliminated in response to budget deficits, Mr. Schwarzenegger is loath to leave office as the governor who oversaw the dismantling of the most famous public university system in the nation.

      “Those protests on the U.C. campuses were the tipping point,” the governor’s chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, said in an interview after the speech. “Our university system is going to get the support it deserves.”http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/us/07calif.html

      • Guest

        “Our university system is going to get the support it deserves”
        If you examine facts rather than PR, you’ll see that we didn’t get any more support, and we’re about to lose even more in mid-year cuts.  Look for another tuition increase.

        • Anonymous

          Look, the only ‘fact’ I was trying to establish was that the protests mitigated the cuts, even if to a woefully inadequate degree.  It’s impossible to have explicit knowledge of what fees would have looked like if no one had protested, but the state says they had some effect.

          I have no illusions that a decision won’t be made to hike tuition again to compensate for CA budget shortfalls in the middle of the coming school year.  And I have no illusion that the regents won’t decide to continue to hike tuition every year they can in perpetuity.

          The response to such foreknowledge isn’t resignation, it’s politics, and that’s what Marco is trying to encourage, the hubris of a modern day Pangloss not withstanding.

          • Guest

            “the state says they had some effect”
            If you’re serious about involvement in politics, you need to understand what you’re talking about.  The Governor recommended more funding for UC; the Legislature rejected the recommendation.  Protests had no effect at all.  Presenting falsehood as fact won’t get you far.  Address the conditions that actually exist.

  • Staffactivist

    Beautifully said, Marco.  We need passion like yours; it’s going to be a long, hard fight. 

    I’m with you.

  • Guest

    Beautifully said Marco! 

    Now for all you Idiots below me(except staffactivist). Tony M. your comments are very pessimistic, but more importantly ignorant. I think Marco would concur that no one in the activist community wants to ask  more from the low income population nor those that have lost their job. What we need are newer taxes, such as a progressive tax, a higher tax on the wealthy and the oil companies, and so much more. And since when do you speak for the whole taxpaying population of California, Word to You Tony: You do not speak for this taxpayer.

    And for that person that said that the 2009 protest didn’t make any difference in terms of money, you are wrong as well. The past California administration gave over $300,000,000 back to the UC, specifically because of the passionate protests that year. 

    Thank you Marco, I will attend that meeting.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

      [Tony M. your comments are very pessimistic, but more importantly
      ignorant. I think Marco would concur that no one in the activist
      community wants to ask  more from the low income population nor those
      that have lost their job. What we need are newer taxes, such as a
      progressive tax, a higher tax on the wealthy and the oil companies, and
      so much more.]

      It’s obvious you’re not gainfully employed or paying any significant amount of taxes in this state, or you would be quite aware that one of the reasons this state is in the fiscal toilet is because the same high-income and high-net-worth taxpayers you wish to soak are leaving in droves. Meanwhile, the state is attracting more and more low-income people to this state, primarily unskilled immigrants (both legal and illegals) who consume far more in social services than they pay in state or federal taxes. In other words, the givers are being replaced with takers.

      You dare to call me ignorant, yet you are too clueless yourself to realize that capital is a mobile asset, and that people with money will just move elsewhere when they decided they are tired of spending the majority of their work hours working for the government. New York City is learning this painful lesson right now as their highest income people (the ones who pay the vast majority of the taxes) choose to live elsewhere. You need to get out of Berkeley once in a while and see how things roll in the real world…

      • Anonymous

        A good way to find out who is clueless and who is ignorant is to actually look at the data, rather than spouting mindless conservative talking points about capital flight and tax migration.  Do you have any actual data about tax flight from California, or are you just assuming?

        Because if it’s an assumption, it’s a rather poor one.

        http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/Migration_PERI_April13.pdf

        http://www.stanford.edu/~cy10/public/Millionaire_Migration.pdf

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

          [A good way to find out who is clueless and who is ignorant is to
          actually look at the data, rather than spouting mindless conservative
          talking points about capital flight and tax migration.  Do you have any
          actual data about tax flight from California, or are you just assuming?]

          Child, I work in the private sector for a living. Deny it all you want, but there are plenty of individuals and businesses who have fled the state of California over the last few decades for a number of reasons, including punitive taxation and regulatory environments.  If you choose to deny that, why don’t you ask why companies such as Intel, Seagate, General Motors, and IBM chose to expand or relocate facilities out of state, or even out of the country in some cases. As I stated before, you clearly are out of touch with how the real world works.

    • Guest

      “gave over $300,000,000 back to the UC”
      The $300 million was a one-time cut that was automatically restored to the base budget in the following year.  Protests had nothing to do with it.

  • Angie

    “EDUCATION IS NOT A PRIVILEGE — IT’S A RIGHT!” is a nice slogan, but apparently some students think its a license to steal:

    http://chronicle.com/article/Education-Department-Chases/128821/?sid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en

    • Anonymous

      I’m not sure why you’re deliberately labeling scam artists students.  That example of fraud is as much committed by students as the spam e-mails in my inbox are sent by Nigerian princes.  Further, the scam in question would not even work at the UC, because of the tuition  (where did your basic math skills go?)

      Your deceptive use of language testifies to a thinly veiled contempt for your former peers that is rather disconcerting.

    • Anonymous

      And of course, only a particularly deluded individual would complain about the, to quote, “untold thousands,” of dollars stolen in this manner compared to untold millions stolen by large scale financial institutions, via deregulation, tax code manipulation, and, most recently, abuse of TARP money.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

        Thanks for the non sequitur response. Typical liberal/progressive tactic when you can’t stick to the subject and win the argument.

        • Anonymous

          What argument am I responding to?

          The blatantly false argument that scam artists are students?

          I was unaware CalGrad was making an argument.  I thought he was just peddling bullshit.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WRACM77JT2RXUR3LMGDPPUGUYY Tony M

    [No, you didn't say it was the only right.  You just cherry picked it as
    an example of a right which does not necessarily make demands on other
    individuals, while ignoring all the rights that do]

    I didn’t “cherry pick” anything, I merely pointed out a salient point that in your cognitive dissonance you refuse to acknowledge. There is NO “right” to use the power of government for any form of redistribution of wealth, regardless of how you choose to spin it.

    • Anonymous

      I’m not sure why you persist in making the same fallacious reasoning.  You used an example (you did not really make an argument) in an attempt to demonstrate, by inference, that all rights do not entail duties to raise revenue.  But your example cannot be generalized to all rights.

      The government has a power and a duty to fund the costs necessary to guarantee certain rights.  Any form of raising revenue is, incidentally, redistributive.  The power to tax is, necessarily, a power to redistribute because all taxes are redistributive.  (You’re the business man, yes?  I’m sure you understand tax incidence.)

      This is practically necessary because the whole point of many rights is that your ability to /pay/ for it does not determine whether or not you are able to enjoy the right.  A ‘right’ to trial by jury only if you can afford to pay for the jury is no right at all. 

      ‘Rights’ which you only have if you can otherwise afford to get them are, analytically, privileges (or liberties).  Free speech is a liberty.  Privileges and liberties do not exhaust the category of rights.

      A 6 year old orphan does not have the ‘privilege’ of going to primary school if he can afford it, he has the right to go /at society’s expense/.  Such a right necessarily redistributes wealth /from/ society /to/ 6 year old orphans.The point couldn’t be clearer (and you couldn’t be denser).

      If you want to argue liberties don’t require raising revenue, I might agree.  But that was never the claim.  The claim was not that one was ‘at liberty’ to pursue an education.  The claim was that education was ‘a right.’  That is debatable, but not on the grounds that education /cannot be/ a right.