Though the ASUC Senate did not take formal action against the Berkeley College Republicans at the senate’s emergency meeting Sunday, individual students could file charge sheets against the group — but formal punishment for the group is fraught with technical, procedural and legal difficulties.
The senate unanimously passed “A Bill in Support of Respectful ASUC Student Group Conduct,” which makes note of the fact that the ASUC has the authority to revoke sponsorship for a student group through the ASUC Judicial Council. The bill stresses the council’s responsibility to “review charges of violation” of the constitution and bylaws.
In other words, the senate left the door open to punitive action against the campus Republicans’ group while declining to take action at the meeting.
While no senators stated their views as to whether the campus group would be formally punished, other ASUC officials suggested that it could. ASUC President Vishalli Loomba said in an email Saturday it was possible the campus group would get its funding revoked. Last year’s ASUC Attorney General Nathan Rahmanou, who is currently a law student at UCLA, said “it’s very possible that (the campus Republicans’ group) could lose (its) ability to have ASUC sponsorship.”
Punitive action against a student organization can be referred to the council in two ways, according to the ASUC bylaws. The first is for the senate to vote to file charges by a two-thirds majority. The second is for a UC Berkeley student to file a charge sheet. The senate is declining to exercise its authority to recommend that charges be pursued, according to Student Action Senators Shahryar Abbasi, Connor Landgraf and Aviv Gilboa. However, individual students have threatened to file charges against the Berkeley College Republicans, according to Landgraf.
After the council considers the charges, it can do one of four things: find that the campus Republicans’ group is not guilty of wrongdoing under the ASUC constitution and bylaws, issue a formal reprimand, issue a suspension or revoke ASUC sponsorship of the group.
If the council considers the charges filed against the group, it will find itself in a quandary, as two relevant portions of the ASUC constitution and bylaws are inconsistent with one another. The bylaws state that sponsorship can be revoked if a group “discriminates in its method of recruitment and acceptance for membership.” Even if the group were to be found guilty of discriminatory conduct, it would not be guilty of discriminating with regard to member selection.
However, the ASUC constitution, in what may be a typo, states “the Senate shall not fund any activity or group which discriminates against any student… in its method or recruitment and acceptance for membership.” Students who may file charges against the group may be able to exploit this specific language and argue that the group’s “method” of expression is discriminatory.
Currently, the Judicial Council is not equipped to pursue charges against the group, as several spots on the council are vacant and no Attorney General has been confirmed, according to Abbasi. Until a successor is appointed, Rahmanou is technically still the Attorney General but is unlikely to be involved in any action because he is no longer a UC Berkeley student, he said. An Attorney General and Judicial Council members have been nominated by Loomba but will not be confirmed until later this week, according to Abbasi.
There may also be state or federal constitutional issues associated with punitive action against the group. Multiple members of the campus Republicans’ group who commented during Sunday’s senate meeting said that formal punitive action against the group would violate its right to freedom of speech. According to UC Berkeley School of Law Professor Daniel Farber, if the group actually sold cupcakes at different prices to students of different races, then their conduct would not be protected under the First Amendment because “a general rule against racial discrimination in commercial transactions should be valid.” However, Farber cautioned that the ASUC cannot legally “cut off funding just because they don’t like the group’s viewpoint.”
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
haha, that’s cute. The student government thinks they have power.
The ASUC picture accompanying the story is the best kangaroo court picture ever. Can anyone seriously envision being judged by a guy who looks about 14 years old trying to look all don mafioso, flanked by two girls with snoopy and hot pink macbooks?
To quote Herman Cain” Lighten’ up”
How did we go from protesting tuition hikes to fighting over cupcakes in a week? Silly Berkeley College Republicans, next they’ll demand a recount of the cupcake sprinkles per ethnicity, and have a judge intervene that says a cupcake is a treat to be enjoyed in a union between man and woman. What a bunch of precocious wet diapers getting way ahead of themselves. What next, a massive ASUC bailout for their failed $16/muffins industry? Why are we subsidizing these infelicitous nitwits? BCR members should be stoned by stale croissants at noon on Sproul Hall as a fitting punishment.
You’re right. How dare someone bring up a controversial issue? We can’t have disagreement or dissent. We much march in lockstep and love Big Brother.
Dear Berkeley College Republicans: Native American is not considered an Ethnicity by Federal Law, it’s a political affiliation, perhaps you should rethink your bake sale and do a little more research (I am quite sure you have a number of law students in your group, take a look at Morton v Mancari 1974), but if you continue to be ignorant, why shouldnt I use your lack of knowledge on law to get my free muffin tomorrow, I mean, isnt that just a little ironic? Ill use your ignorance against you and get free baked goods similar to how the colonizers used our ignorance on treaties and got ‘free’ lands. Not that it is by any means just, but free muffins off of your stupidty… sure. Sincerely- me
It seems to me that the facial expression of the Senator on the left-most side of the photograph starkly contrasts with the decor of her laptop.
A Lesson in Common Sense………
Obviously it is a typo and was meant to be “of” in both instances.
1)The R key is just above the F key.
2) Reading Article VI Sec 7 (C) in context makes it clear that it should be of and not or. The entirety of Section 7 speaks of membership and recruiting.
Next…..
ARTICLE XI – BILL OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1: DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
The ASUC shall not deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall the ASUC deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
SECTION 2: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
The ASUC shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the ASUC for a redress of grievances.
Since the ASUC shall “make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”, it would be absurd to interpret Article VI Section 7(C)of the Constitution, regardless of whether “or” is or is not a typo, as allowing “abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” which is exactly what this controversy is all about.
BCR exercised their free speech rights.
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/252459/uc-berkeley-asuc-constitution.pdf
.
A while back I read a College Republican’s white paper that encouraged party members to not say or do things that could be interpreted as disrespectful to Hispanics. The motivation for the white paper was obvious.
Apparently the Berkeley College Republicans did not get that memo.
A checkers mentality in a game of multidimensional chess.
Funny, no one ever talks about Affirmative Action while cheering on the football and mens basketball teams. Hmmmm.
I think cal needs to add more whites and asians to both teams.
ASUC to BCR: racism is okay, as long as it benefits “protected” classes and no one knows about it.
Funny thing – BCR was trying to replicate benefits to protected classes. And they are STILL getting screamed at. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
“ According to UC Berkeley School of Law Professor Daniel Farber, if the group actually sold cupcakes at different prices to students of different races, then their conduct would not be protected under the First Amendment because ‘a general rule against racial discrimination in commercial transactions should be valid.’”
Does that sound like a legal argument to you? “SHOULD BE VALID?” Excuse me? According to whom? And what does it matter who says so? Doesn’t, I dunno, the LAW form the basis of LEGAL discussions? I realize that law schools are basically spin mills for politicians, but really, you’re about to use a KNOWN TYPO to suppress perspectives that don’t align with your own?
Perhaps this is the form the new authoritarianism will take when the American empire collapses. Maybe political correctness will lead the way to the gulags.
Farber is an environmental law professor – and a boring one at that.
Martin Luther King Jr always stated that he wants to live in a world where people are not judged by the color of their skin, but by who they are. This was his ideal world. Am I the only one who thinks that affirmative action is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION of this?!
I think the question no one is asking, but everyone is wondering, is what Kanye West thinks about this.
My question is: if a student group uses discriminatory practices of recruitment and they are to be subject to punishment, what about the Asian American Association, or some asian business club. I walk past their tables and am never offered an invitation, instead i am passed over for the student who appears to be Asian.
Is this not discriminatory practices of recruitment?
“Currently, the Judicial Council is not equipped to pursue charges against the group, as several spots on the council are vacant and no Attorney General has been confirmed.” Seriously, ASUC? It’s the end of September, and the ASUC hasn’t filled these spots yet…congratulations for being lame once again.
Discrimination against instate Californians practiced by University of California Berkeley.
University of California Berkeley Chancellor Robert J Birgeneau
($500,000 salary), displaces qualified for public university education at Cal.
Californians with $50,600 FOREIGN students.
Ranked # 70 by Forbes, the University of California
Berkeley is not increasing enrollment. $50,600 FOREIGN students are accepted by
Birgeneau at the expense of qualified instate students.
Your opinions make a difference; email UC Board of
Regents [email protected]
The longer the ruckus over this continues, the more BCR’s point is being made and attention is focusing on the very issue the bake sale satirizes.
Everyone is just fine with racism and discrimination, as long as they benefit: admissions, tuition, you name it. Berkeley students violently protest in the name of free speech while viciously condemning the free speech they don’t agree with.
Kind of like folks who kill doctors who perform abortions: killing is wrong, unless it serves your purpose.
That republicans have a racist faction that continues to show its true colors but under the blanket of “free speech”. Yep, that’s the issue alright.
Typical. Don’t agree with a group’s perspective…scream RACISM!
The BCR weren’t advocating racism. You’re merely trying to smear them, the usual tactic of lefties who can’t win the argument.
Okay, I totally disapprove of the bake sale, but the idea of punishing the group is ridiculous. One of our campus’s most cherished beliefs is that of FREE SPEECH!
Free speech? At Berkeley?
Their coffee is just okay.
Those in the opposing political party should pay their respects to the Berkeley College Republicans.
Liberals could not buy better anti- Republican advertising than the Berkeley Xollege Republicans have provided free of charge.
The Berkeley College Republicans could not have a harsher punishment imposed on them then the punishment they have imposed on themselves and their party.
The BCR people have made their point by the hysterical response from you clueless children. They argue that liberals use Political Correctness to stifle freedom of speech and all you do is prove them right.
I read a few of your posts yesterday.
You are a small picture guy.
On the positive side you have very good puncuatns skills .
[I read a few of your posts yesterday. You are a small picture guy.]
Sorry, but FREEDOM OF SPEECH is the big picture. The racial composition of college admissions is the “small” picture.
I said nothing about trying to limit anyone’s right to express their feelings.
I’m happy the Berkeley College Republicans decided to express their feelings in a way that is detrimental to their image. I like it when people I don’t agree with deliberately act in ways that turn people off.
Carry on.
Emotive types like you express “feelings”. The BCR expressed their THOUGHTS, which were along the line that Affirmative Action was inherently racist and a violation of state law – and a number of individuals happen to agree with them. You obviously can’t tell the difference between a “feeling” and a “thought”.
Many have attempted to characterize me for their purposes; they like you have met little success.
It’s useless Tony. He won’t think about it.
It is fine with me if the word “feelings” is replaced with’ thoughts’ or the like; it does not change the point of my post.
The Berkeley College Republicans lack finesse of expression and hurt their party with their action much more than they helped their limited cause.
I remain pleased with the Berkeley College Republicans autolysis.
[The Berkeley College Republicans lack finesse of expression and hurt their party.]
Given that you oppose the BCR, why should any consider your advice anyway?
“as two relevant portions of the ASUC constitution and bylaws are inconsistent with one another” and “However, the ASUC constitution, in what may be a typo, states … ”
WTF?!?!?!?!
ASUC is looking more pathetic every day!
Seriously, when was the last time a charge sheet was pursued to a reasonable conclusion? Noah Stern was charged with, and admitted to, casting votes for him self in other peoples’ names – in the election which saw him become ASUC prez! Were the charges pursued then? Not in any meaningful way.
ASUC is an embarrassment to Cal!
A bunch of snotty petulant children, and becoming much worse:
self-important and divorced from reality.
Willful self-delusion & lacking integrity are the only qualifications needed to become part of UC’s administration, or to get into elected office.
Congrats! ASUC, you are all well on your way to success!
The best part:
“Farber cautioned that ASUC cannot legally “cut off funding just because they don’t like the group’s viewpoint.”
BOOM! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Does ASUC realize that they’re giving BCR free publicity? I don’t think so. Liberal progressive thinking at it’s best. (not)