With UC Berkeley’s reputation for activism, it should come as no surprise that many of its students are politically involved.
Sproul Plaza is littered with pamphlets on Proposition 30. Student groups have sent members to campaign in Nevada for presidential candidates. Though it may not have the same fervor of 2008, student involvement in politics nationally and statewide is strong at UC Berkeley.
But what happens locally is a much different story. With Election Day less than a week away, Mayor Tom Bates personally joined the swarms of handbillers on Sproul Plaza, hoping to make sure students at the very least know his name.
“I would say (Cal students are) a small minority involved in a local campaign level,” said fourth year Thomas Kinzer, a volunteer for Councilmember Kriss Worthington’s mayoral campaign. “I would go so far as to say one out of two Cal students couldn’t even tell you who the mayor of Berkeley is.”
Though Kinzer does not doubt that Berkeley students are politically inclined, he feels that most of their attention is probably directed at a national level and not so much locally.
“When I went to a mayoral debate, I was the youngest guy there by 20 years, easy,” Kinzer said.
Bates understands the sentiment. Like any Berkeley student seasoned in the art of handing out flyers, Bates accepts rejection easily as groups of students swiftly move past him on their way to and from class.
However, some students who are informed and interested in politics do take the time to get involved locally.
Student groups like Cal Berkeley Democrats endorse candidates, such as when they endorsed Worthington for mayor — a fact Worthington touts proudly in his campaign material.
“A lot of our members really appreciated the amount of time that Kriss spent at (our) events,” said CalDems President Daniel Tuchler.
Moreover, some of these locally involved students actually do move on to bigger commitments within the city. Readily visible examples include Councilmember Jesse Arreguin, Rent Board Commissioner Igor Tregub and mayoral candidate Kahlil Jacobs-Fantauzzi. All are UC Berkeley alumni and were involved in local government during their time as students.
But these locally involved students remain an unsung minority. More students prefer to go for the more captivating — or perhaps more glamorous — political issues statewide and nationally.
Tuchler said CalDems have been more focused on national or state matters, like Prop. 30. They have not campaigned for Worthington despite their endorsement.
The Berkeley College Republicans have also been sending members across the state working in various campaigns for candidates like Peter Tateishi for the California State Assembly and Dan Lungren for Congress, said BCR President Derek Zhou.
Zhou said that many of BCR’s members are interested in local candidates, though the club itself has made no endorsements.
Another visible example lies with the ASUC. The ASUC held a forum on Prop. 30 Tuesday night. Conversely, it canceled its local mayoral forum on Oct. 3 so as not to compete with the presidential debate.
Even former ASUC Senator Sydney Fang readily admits that students simply are not very interested in local issues for the most part.
“Just from conversations with folks, students feel disconnected from the community,” Fang said. “They feel like, ‘Oh, I’m just here for school.’”
Despite being rather politically involved, Fang admitted that she has heard little about the local Berkeley election in comparison to the larger state and national races.
“The circles I run in are very politically active, and there’s really no discussion of any kind on local elections,” Fang said.
Jaehak Yu is the lead city government reporter. Contact him at [email protected].
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.


The students’ lack of interest in local politics just reflects the rest of the population. Long term residents of Berkeley probably have the same lack of interest in local politics when compared to state and national politics. It is only natural for people to be more interested in the politics that would most affect their lives, and people don’t think local politics have as much affect on them as state and national politics.
It would be interesting to include with this article a link to something showing what percentage of Berkeley alums actually end up residing in the city of Berkeley and what percentage move on the new places. Maybe Sydney Fang’s point that many students are just here for school has a lot of truth to it.
great piece. it takes the hugh student vote off the table. amazing. Ripley’s Believe It or Not; home of free-speech , snoozes through local election. OMG! The image of Bates being ignored in Sproul is way cool.
Why do students need to be “involved in local politics” in the first place? How about concentrating on school, graduating, and moving on with your lives instead?
why can’t they do both?
oh Stan, ever the small minded dipshit
Because as much as I disagree with long-time Berkeley residents on a number of political issues, those residents who live there permanently, pay taxes, and ultimately have to deal with the consequences of their decisions should not have their votes watered down by a transient population that doesn’t pay local property taxes and will move on in a few years anyway.
Although the student population is transient, it’s rather-high percentage of the population remains mostly static. The student perspective should be actively considered in decision-making by the local government, and the more students are involved in local politics, the more likely they are to decide to make Berkeley a permanent home after they graduate.
You mean that once they have a degree in Peace & Conflict Studies or some other PC nonsense, they can’t go out in the real world because they don’t have any marketable skills. Choosing to remain in an insular little college town after graduation is an admission that what you studied is for the most part worthless.
I’m pretty sure property taxes on apartment buildings are transferred, one way or another, to tenants. Not to mention other ways in which Berkeley’s economy depends on the university and its students.
Besides, the fundamental logic error of your argument is that it’s fine (actually, it’s desirable) to disenfranchise over a third of the city population just because each individual within that group stays for only “a few years”.
It actually really is fine because they’re not really stakeholders in the city like more permanent residents are.
Because those permanent residents are doing such a bang-up job…
…
RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT.
…
They’ve got it all figured out. The city is working JUST GREAT!