A group of UC Berkeley faculty members is calling upon Chancellor Robert Birgeneau to request that charges filed against demonstrators involved in Nov. 9 protests be dropped.
The Berkeley Faculty Association is currently circulating a petition that states that the chancellor should ask the Alameda County district attorney to drop all charges that have been filed against several protesters. Students Ricardo Gomez, Zakary Habash and Ramon Quintero and associate English professor Celeste Langan face several charges, including resisting arrest and remaining at the scene of a riot, according to county criminal dockets.
The petition — which has garnered about 300 signatures online so far — is only for campus faculty members, according to the association’s website. In addition to calling for the campus administration to condemn legal actions that constitute a “significant chilling of free speech and rights of free assembly on campus,” the petition references the campus division of the Academic Senate’s Nov. 28 vote to endorse four resolutions criticizing the administration’s handling of the Occupy Cal protest.
The petition was developed by professors Judith Baker, Richard Walker and Shannon Steen. Butler also authored a proposal that was passed by the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate last semester condemning the administration’s response and handling of the events of Nov. 9.
“We are calling for all charges against all protesters to be dropped,” Butler said about the faculty members’ petition in an email, adding that the petition will be circulated “as long as this process is ongoing.”
A similar petition — which was posted today and currently seeks 1,000 signatures from non-Berkeley faculty and students — is being circulated by UC Santa Barbara Professor Christopher Newfield, according to Butler.
Since those resolutions determined that the campus administration and police “were in the wrong” in the way they handled the protest, “legal and financial responsibility for the defense of the students and faculty charged falls squarely on the university,” the petition states.
Additionally, the petition asks that the administration be open to dialogue about the protest events with students. The campus Police Review Board has already held several public meetings in its investigation of the Nov. 9 protest events, which have allowed campus police and protesters to provide verbal and video testimony about police use of force. The board will submit a report to Birgeneau with recommendations for future practices during protests.
Read the full text of the petition below:
Condemn criminal charges against Nov. 9, 2011 Protesters by Alameda DA.
We, the undersigned faculty of the University of California, are dismayed by the criminal charges brought by the Alameda County District Attorney against several students and faculty engaged in campus protest on November 9th, 2011. We call upon Chancellor Birgeneau to request that the D.A. drop all charges against the campus protestors.
The D.A.’s decision represents a significant chilling of free speech and the rights of free assembly on campus, values officially enshrined in UC Berkeley’s Principles of Community (“We are committed to ensuring freedom of expression and dialogue that elicits the full spectrum of views held by our varied communities.” http://berkeley.edu/about/principles.shtml). Our administration must condemn any legal actions that undermine these values.
Indeed, as some of the students now being prosecuted were not even arrested on November 9th, these legal actions seem designed to criminalize those who are exercising basic rights of protest. We note as well that the faculty member now scheduled for arraignment was practicing non-violent civil disobedience and, after voluntarily offering herself for arrest, was dragged by the hair and thrown to the ground by police, sustaining injuries.
Moreover, we remind Chancellor Birgeneau that the faculty Senate has stated in the resolutions of November 28, 2011, that the university administration and the police were in the wrong in their handling of the November 9th demonstrations. Hence, should the prosecution go forward, the legal and financial responsibility for the defense of the students and faculty charged falls squarely on the university.
Finally, we ask that the administration reply in the affirmative to any student request to enter into a public discussion of these issues, and we support efforts to open up dialogue to find resolution for these events rather than the prosecution of rights of protest.
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.
[Tony M must be on the rag because he obviously is overreacting when he
talks about how people are lazy and useless unless they carry a 6 figure
salary and that all protesters are homeless and have no jobs.]
I noticed that you could not refute any specific point I made in my post. Figures…
“Chilling of free speech”
LOL, what a bunch of drama queens.
I have to laugh about these junior bolshevik wannabes, who call for a revolution of the proletariat complete with riots and vandalism, then cry like babies when they get roughed up by the cops. Their concerns regarding “free speech” also seem rather selective as well. This is what happens when spoiled children grow up – they never become adults, merely age-advanced adolescents…
I accidentally liked Tony M’s post, so take away one like. I find really funny that a lot of the things that you criticize are also flaws you seem to demonstrate.
Like all the conservatives when they say how raising taxes on the rich will ruin our economy by scaring off the “job creators”, and we have to invade Iraq and Afghanistan and stay there or else the will “follow us home”, and we can’t have universal health care because there will be “government death panels”, and we can’t elect Obama because “he’s a foreign-born muslim”, and how women who don’t submit to your every political whim are “feminazis”, and how “corporations are people”, and how plutocracy is somehow synonymous with democracy, and how….
Need I go on? Lol.
” Like all the conservatives when they say how raising taxes on the rich will ruin our economy by scaring off the “job creators”
Which happens to be true. So what’s your point?
Then how come shortly after WWII we had a tax rate on the ultra-rich around 90% effective and it was the greatest boom period in modern American history? Then how come other countries that actually tax their rich have a better standard of living and better healthcare than us, at least 4 weeks paid vacation a year, and good public transportation? Rich people ain’t going anywhere bro, America is still more profitable to HQ in than anywhere else even with a ridiculous tax rate. Hey, they’ll still send our jobs off to China either way.
[ Then how come shortly after WWII we had a tax rate on the ultra-rich
around 90% effective and it was the greatest boom period in modern
American history?]
So what do you think would happen if all the able-bodied person in the country worked their butts off in overtime for 3-4 years straight, didn’t spend any money on luxuries or consumer goods (because there was nothing to buy thanks to forced rationing – everything from meat to rubber tires to nylon stockings), your country escapes the type of mass destruction visited on nearly every other industrial nation in the world and is the only one that has the industrial capacity to meet the demands of the rest of the world once the war is ended? You sorta have the corner on the world’s market for industrial goods and consumer items. That wasn’t caused by 90% taxation, and in fact you conveniently overlook significant recessions in 1945-46, 1951-52, and the one in 1958-60 that prompted JFK to actually CUT taxes to spur investment and launch the boom economy of the 1960′s. You conveniently forget a lot of history along the way.
[Then how come other countries that actually tax their rich have a better
standard of living and better healthcare than us, at least 4 weeks paid
vacation a year, and good public transportation?]
You mean like all those countries in Europe that are going broke?
[Rich people ain't going anywhere bro, America is still more profitable
to HQ in than anywhere else even with a ridiculous tax rate.]
You don’t get it, do you? For starters, rich people DO move, and it’s not necessary to move out of the country if all you are trying to do is escape one state’s excessive tax rate – all you do then is move out of state. In addition, you forget that people are taxed on INCOME, not wealth. If those same rich think that tax rates are punitive, they can quite easily escape taxation, simply by not having income. Unlike those of us who need to work to pay the bills, rich people can simply decide it isn’t worth the hassle to invest, sit on their cash and/or go on vacation instead, often to some exotic locale and enjoy themselves, rather than sweating over their investment. What do you think is happening right now with this incompetent administration? When the progressive start screaming “soak the rich”, the rich take the safe position and simply hold tight on any investment until better times come along. That means no capital investment for new businesses, therefore new jobs. If you don’t believe me, what do you think is going on right now?
Once again, you idiot lefties think you’re so much smarter than everyone else, but those who earned big money are typically way smarter than you. But keep pretending that soaking the rich is the key to California’s salvation, and see how far that gets you. My own company (privately-funded alternative energy start-up, NOT taking stimulus money) is based in California at present, but we have already determined we won’t ever make a profit if we try to manufacture in California, so the big debate is not IF we will relocate, but WHERE, with the primary choices at this point being Phoenix or Las Vegas (plenty of sunshine in those places). Maybe you will have a brush with reality some day if you ever get a job, but until then, you don’t have a freaking clue…
Tony M must be on the rag because he obviously is overreacting when he talks about how people are lazy and useless unless they carry a 6 figure salary and that all protesters are homeless and have no jobs. Earth to Tony M!! many people who protest employment, and educational inequality are people who hold an occupational position, just because someone wants to support a group doesn’t mean they necessarily fit into that group, their morals take over and motivate them to participate regardless.
This is bullshit.
So the same little autocrats who wanted to punish the BCR for expressing an opinion they did not approve of (AA Bake Sale) believe that those who share THEIR views should be immune to legal consequences for forcing a confrontation with the police. Berkeley in the 21st Century is starting to sound a lot more like Germany in the 1930′s, where a certain group decided they had more rights than anyone else. For all you idiots screaming against “privatization” (something that is NOT occurring), this type of stuff only make more of an argument FOR it. One more fine example of how the political-bureaucratic class in California is dedicated to turning this state into a third-world mess.
Privatization IS occurring. Look at everything from our military (now 50% mercenary contractors) to our public education (public funding cut to at least 1/5th of what it was). And how did BCR get “punished”??? Just because people don’t agree with you and ASUC doesn’t support you doesn’t mean you’re being punished…just unpopular. But it doesn’t mean that anyone will (and didn’t) stop them. And if you think that the US is going downhill so fast then why don’t you just leave?
” Privatization IS occurring. Look at everything from our military (now 50% mercenary contractors)”
Where did you pull that number out of?
“to our public education (public funding cut to at least 1/5th of what it was)”
Really? Sources and cites for that silly assertion?
No wonder people don’t take your type OR your “movement” seriously.
1) “According to a 2008 study by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, private contractors make up 29% of the workforce in the United States Intelligence Community and cost the equivalent of 49% of their personnel budgets.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company
(check the refs at the bottom for this quote, never trust wiki directly ;) )
2) You obviously don’t even go to school at UCB so you wouldn’t know these types of things…
http://alumni-friends.berkeley.edu/fightingback/
[1) "According to a 2008 study by the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, private contractors make up 29% of the workforce in the
United States Intelligence Community and cost the equivalent of 49% of
their personnel budgets."]
The “US Intelligence Community” is NOT the military, which certainly is NOT staffed anywhere near 50% with what you call “mercenary contractors”. As far as whether I went to Cal, I earned my BSChE in 1995 and have been out in the real world working since that time, not hanging around Bezerkeley with the liberal arts/humanities rejects who never made it out of town because they are for all practical purposes unemployable.
OK, to put it bluntly, there were around 100,000 private security contractors in Iraq at the end of ’06, nearing the number of government personnel working there. Ref:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401311.html
That is not a small number, or percentage. And the US Intelligence Community INCLUDES the military (DoD), along with the CIA, FBI, etc. Why do we care? Rightttttt, because our tax dollars go straight into these private companies. We’re not even wasting money on our own government resources in these silly wars! Does the incessant funneling of taxpayer money into private hands sound strangely like…a bailout? Oh, and the definition of “mercenary”? The Geneva Convention defines it a person:
“motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for
private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to
the conflict, material compensation substantially IN EXCESS of that
promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the
armed forces of that Party” (the “in excess” part? Remember that 29/49% ratio?).
Even for someone who doesn’t look up your “facts”, you’re surprisingly incorrect (sorry, I just had to spin that :P).
You do realize that the “United States Intelligence Community” and the US military are 2 different things altogether, don’t you?
Don’t even talk Stan you pull some useless uncredited crap all over these forums. For your information a decent percentage of our military efforts are contracted out to other nations and private military companies like blackwater. Cant forget about NATO either. Pubsrclowns made a better point than you ever will. Stan do us a favor, how about you and Tony M get married and discuss your un-sourced information and narrow minded ideas with each other cause no one takes your crap seriously. The people that like your posts are doing it as a joke so don’t feel too proud.
[Don't even talk Stan you pull some useless uncredited crap all over
these forums. For your information a decent percentage of our military
efforts are contracted out to other nations and private military
companies like blackwater.]
The claim was made that 50% of our military is “mercenary contractors” and therefore “privatized”. That is such a ludicrous claim that has no basis in fact, as anyone with half a brain should realize right away. But go ahead and get all puffy and teary-eyed in trying to assert the claim of the original poster, because it makes it clear you aren’t too swift yourself.