Editorial's Stance Overly Supports University

Editor's Note: This is a response to an editorial headlined "Searching for an Ending," which was published on July 28, 2008.

It's a little unsettling to me that the paper has not only taken the university's position in the tree sit saga, but actually one-upped the school through its editorial voice. I do feel that such a perspective should be reflected in the paper, but I think it should be done as a bylined story.

"The university should take direct action and fire up the chain saws … The university's inexplicable tolerance of their illegal inhabitation in the oak groves for over 19 months-including taking measures to ensure their safety and to keep them nourished-must cease," the Daily Cal wrote.

The paper then writes that the school should do this because students need a sports training center and the ongoing saga is costing a lot of money. Aside from the fact that a wrongful death suit will be far more expensive, and will delay any future construction, the suggestion that UC Berkeley should do whatever it takes to save money, turns my stomach.

The paper is basically calling for the murder of peaceful protesters. After taking such a stance, can people really trust the Daily Californian to be objective about issues of popular struggle again? According to the paper's Web site, it gained its independence from the university after reporting on People's Park; should we be asking ourselves if the paper is still truly independent?

Alas, I suspect the paper is still very much its own thing and that this editorial reflects the changing face of Cal instead. For some papers, their credo is "to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." After reading this editorial it seems you'd rather afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable.

Josh Wolf

San Francisco

Tags: