Moore, a 41-year-old transgender Berkeley resident, died of an accidental drug overdose while in police custody in February, but the details of her death did not come to light until the release of the report on May 3 — nearly 3 months after her death.

A death in police custody is inherently an extremely sensitive situation — one which the department needed to communicate with the public about quickly and extensively.

Instead, not only was an autopsy report not released in a timely manner, but the police failed to provide a meaningful reason for the delay to the public.

Furthermore, before the death occurred in police custody, the autopsy should have been done by an outside agency other than the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Coroner’s Bureau to ensure its validity and rid the police department of unnecessary suspicion.

Employing an outside organization to complete an internal investigation is not unheard of. Following the events of Occupy Cal in November 2011, an independent review of police actions were ordered to make certain that no bias was involved.

Although department spokesperson Jennifer Coats apologized for the lengthy delay and noted that the department wanted to ensure a “proper and thorough investigation for Moore,” an apology is not enough.

If Berkeley Police Department expects to be valued and trusted by the people it aims to protect and serve, it needs to be prompt and accountable regarding its own conduct.

The department should learn from this incident and create a better procedure for the future — one in which it moves forward with transparency as a fundamental value.

The post A deplorable delay appeared first on The Daily Californian.

AB 609, which was introduced to the state assembly in February, aims to make results of government-funded research freely available to the public online. The bill follows a February mandate by the Obama administration requiring similar accessibility for federally funded research papers.

Open access to research is an important part of making education increasingly democratized and ensuring equal access to knowledge — regardless of socioeconomic status.

This cause is particularly relevant to the university. The university is renowned for its scientific and humanities research worldwide and, as a public institution, making this knowledge as widely available as possible is integral to fulfilling its mission. Considering that UC Berkeley will spend an estimated $30 million on access to 7,500 academic journals this year alone, open access could make knowledge sharing between institutions far more affordable.

Though supporting AB 609 is a step in the right direction, the bill also has its flaws.
For one thing, though the bill has not yet passed, its current language seems to indicate that the university is not considered a state agency held to the same standards of open sharing.

The university should not be exempt from making its research public if it intends to benefit from other state institutions’ public research.

AB 609 was recently amended to allow for a 12-month embargo period, during which research will be published in a peer-review journal before it is shared, but this is too long to be kept behind paywalls.

Support of the bill is also not all the university can and should do to make itself a strong advocate for open access.

The university should also support programs like the Open Access Initiative, which was co-founded by two campus undergraduates and suggests awarding less profit to publishers, who have less of a role in the research process.

Critics worry that open access to research could come at the cost of quality. That must not be the case for open access to be meaningful. There is a reason research must be peer-reviewed and vetted thoroughly before it is published, a process that must continue regardless of whether research papers are available for free.

As the open access movement gains momentum, it raises a few questions regarding different types of academic research. For instance, how should we provide the same type of access to humanities research, which is often published in a different format than science journals?

We need to be certain that this difference in format does not result in hard science becoming more available while humanities research remains under wraps, which could in turn lead to a greater divide between the disciplines.

The movement for open access to research parallels the one we are currently seeing in online education. Universities like MIT, Harvard and even UC Berkeley are joining programs that allow for affordable ways to access lectures and classes online — why shouldn’t research journals be made available in the same way?

The post Education democratization appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Though recent efforts show the council is doing a good job at trying to improve Telegraph’s atmosphere, simply altering the nature of the city’s quotas is not the right the solution to the problem — especially if local business owners and managers do not support the change. The city needs to work harder at being more inclusive and making these important stakeholders a bigger part of the process.

The council item, which was introduced at Tuesday’s meeting, proposes relaxing a quota that limits the amount of certain businesses — like restaurants and barber shops — that can operate in the Telegraph commercial area. If implemented, the proposal would relax the quota for the next three years.

Currently, the purpose of the quota is to prevent too many of the same type of business from moving in and creating an unhealthy amount of competition. The quota also ensures a wide variety of dining and shopping choices for students and yearlong residents who live in the area.

If the city decides to relax the quota, it must communicate with Telegraph’s existing mom-and-pop shops on the effect of the change on their businesses. Existing restaurants, such as Pappy’s Grill and Sports Bar and Gypsy’s Trattoria Italiana, expressed concerns at the council meeting that relaxing the quota would allow new restaurants to flood an already competitive environment.

The council also needs to ensure it solicits the input of local businesses and groups, such as the Telegraph Business Improvement District, on how to better improve the district through alternative solutions. This communication should extend beyond council meetings, where time to discuss the issue is often limited. The council should host open forum meetings to hear resident and business input.

The city is doing the right thing by making moves to improve the bleak atmosphere of Telegraph, which has seen rapid business turnover and is currently host to two vacant lots at the intersection of Telegraph and Haste Street, where any substantial rebuilding still seems far off.

The council’s consideration of the item is also in line with its long-debated Southside Plan, which was passed in September 2011 and aims to improve the area’s business environment through changes in zoning guidelines and the implementation of additional affordable housing. It is uplifting to see the city paying the necessary attention to Telegraph’s future, but zoning quotas are probably not the answer, and certainly not the only one.

Though the city has decided not to take action on the item for now, the plan’s introduction sets a precedent for a summer that could see improvements to make Telegraph more livable and safe for students, including the move to a 24/7 district and better lighting on the street.

Contact the opinion desk at opinion@dailycal.org.

The post Let’s talk about quotas appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In an interview with The Daily Californian’s Senior Editorial Board last week, Birgeneau recalled an instance when officials at another university referred to “the Berkeley miracle” — essentially, the fact that the campus has been able to avoid deteriorating as state funds diminish. A less skilled chancellor might have succumbed to talk that, in the face of such a steep challenge, the campus needed to sacrifice access in the name of excellence or comprehensive academic rigor for targeted success. Birgeneau held steadfast to the belief that UC Berkeley could remain prominent in all areas, and he was largely successful in that mission. “Now, the state … doesn’t even provide enough money to pay the salary of our teachers,” Birgeneau said in the interview. “In spite of that, Berkeley continues to be one of the top-tier universities in the world.”

A student who arrived at UC Berkeley this year sees a tuition bill exponentially higher than those who entered campus when Birgeneau began his chancellorship in 2004. With state funds now accounting for only about 11 percent of the campus budget, students should hardly be surprised. And though UC systemwide tuition hikes over the years have been deplorable, Birgeneau has done all he can to keep UC Berkeley affordable. He started by getting ahead of the curve. About six years ago, Birgeneau said, he and other administrators realized that state funding was going to be a problem, and they “understood that if we did nothing … Berkeley would not be the institution it is today.”

To fight the threat of rising tuition prices posed to middle-class families, Birgeneau pioneered the creation of the campus’s Middle Class Access Plan in 2011. Touted as the first of its kind for any public university in the country, the innovative financial aid system caps parent contribution at 15 percent of total income for students whose families make between $80,000 and $140,000.  But he was also cognizant of the reality that “there was no silver bullet” to the funding crisis. Accordingly, he oversaw a diverse transformation in the campus’s fundraising model. During his time as chancellor, for example, the Campaign for Berkeley has raised nearly $2.6 billion as of last summer to support faculty chairs, research and scholarships, among other items.

As such efforts progress, Birgeneau has in effect instigated a culture change for UC Berkeley. Despite dwindling public funds, Birgeneau’s leadership has emphasized holding onto the campus’s “public character.” That means the campus continues to strive for economic diversity — which one can find evidence of by noting that 38 percent of UC Berkeley undergraduate students received Pell Grants in the 2010-11 school year, according to U.S. News and World Report. It also means that the faculty and student body on campus are deeply committed to public service, Birgeneau said.

In the spirit of serving the public, Birgeneau has been a tireless advocate for some of the most disadvantaged students. Aside from his trailblazing middle-class financial aid plan, Birgeneau displayed a deep devotion to making UC Berkeley accessible for undocumented students. Not only did he personally pressure the governor to support the California DREAM Act, which allows undocumented students to receive financial aid, but he also presided over the creation of a campus scholarship for undocumented students. And he understands that support for undocumented students is incomplete without immigration reform at the federal level, a cause he will no doubt continue to advance when he ends his chancellorship this summer.

Yet when it comes to general campus climate, while Birgeneau recognizes the friction among some student communities, his mindset is problematic. He accurately pointed out that productive dialogue between students is key to bridging the gap, but he incorrectly framed campus climate as “a student problem, not an administration problem.” He is correct that “climate is about how students interact with each other,” but more proactive administrative support would go a long way. The administration, which does not turn over every year like much of the student leadership, needs to take a more active role in improving campus climate.

Birgeneau has also not been accessible enough to students. Although he did a decent job connecting with specific student leaders, he certainly could have been more accountable to the student body at large. When asked about his relationship with the student government, Birgeneau pointed out that he has fostered close ties with ASUC presidents, but he has not been nearly visible enough in the ASUC Senate in recent years. Incoming chancellor Nicholas Dirks, who arrives at UC Berkeley after serving as an administrator at Columbia University, must be more present in public student spaces on campus.

|Dirks can also learn from Birgeneau’s mismanagement of major campus protests. During two of the most significant demonstrations in recent years — at Wheeler Hall in 2009 and during Occupy Cal in 2011 — Birgeneau came under fire for failing to prevent police use of force against protesters. If Dirks internalizes lessons learned from the uproarious aftermath of those protests, he should be able to avoid similar pitfalls.

However, Dirks’ biggest test, as Birgeneau indicated, will be whether he can continue to protect the public character of UC Berkeley. The campus has done great work under Birgeneau, but threats to balancing access and excellence remain. “We don’t need more great private universities — we need great public universities,” Birgeneau said. “That’s Berkeley’s responsibility … we need to be vigilant to maintain our public character for the indefinite future.” Dirks has big shoes to fill on that front.

The post Chancellor Robert Birgeneau appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Elected representatives of the UC Berkeley student body like Pacheco and Landgraf have an obligation to be honest and transparent about their actions. This is especially paramount when it comes to controversial topics like the debate around SB 160, a bill the senate passed nearly two weeks ago that calls for divestment from companies associated with the Israeli military. Pacheco offered to drop completely unrelated charges against Landgraf’s executive order putting the health and wellness referendum on the ballot if Landgraf did not veto the bill. Though he indicated in his handwritten note to Landgraf that his offer should not be the deciding factor, its very existence calls his motives into question.

Pacheco somehow needs to be held accountable for his actions. Landgraf made the right call by being forthcoming to the ASUC attorney general about what happened; Pacheco should face charges if at all possible. If no grounds exist to charge Pacheco for his ethical breach, then the ASUC Senate must at the very least take steps to prohibit such actions from recurring in the future.

On a broader level, Pacheco’s note is one of several indicators of the extent to which divestment has negatively impacted the campus. Considering that senators have received threatening messages and the physical assault that occurred on campus before the vote, the ASUC and the campus administration should intervene. Students must feel safe on campus, even after expressing controversial political beliefs, and they must be able to have faith that the ASUC is operating with integrity and accountability.

ASUC President-elect DeeJay Pepito would do well to focus on improving campus climate as she begins her term. Though many students disagree about the necessity of divestment, all should be able to acknowledge that some of the reactions have reflected poorly on the UC Berkeley community. And as the assault and the general reaction to divestment show, the problem transcends the boundaries of the ASUC. All student groups need to be engaged in a meaningful way moving forward so that none feel UC Berkeley is not a safe or welcoming place for them.

The post Divestment quid pro no appeared first on The Daily Californian.

SHIP was supposed to unite all UC campuses under a cohesive, well-managed health system that saved them money and eased the managerial burden by streamlining health coverage. Instead, students have seen that SHIP is too organizationally painful to operate effectively. Administrative mismanagement led to a deficit that was at one point projected at $57 million — a problem that seems like it could have been entirely avoided had the university done a better job communicating with the firm responsible for setting premiums.

Support for leaving SHIP has rapidly grown on campus over the  semester. In February, a group of administrators wrote that if SHIP’s operations were not “considerably improved” for the next academic year, individual campuses could opt out of the plan “to seek a more stable and financially viable health plan for students.” At a series of public forums in March, students weighed in on various proposals to tackle the plan’s deficit and toyed with the idea of jumping SHIP. Just two weeks ago, the ASUC Senate indicated unanimously that it supports withdrawing from the plan. Earlier this month, student leaders — including the ASUC and Graduate Assembly presidents — sent a letter to Chancellor Robert Birgeneau stating that “we have lost faith in UCOP’s ability to effectively manage the UC SHIP plan and believe pulling out is our only real option.”

Mismanagement as large as that which resulted in the plan’s current deficit could end up necessitating premium increases for students. To that end, as Graduate Assembly President Bahar Navab said in March, “If we start causing deterrents to students using care, then what’s the point of SHIP?” Before joining UC SHIP a few years ago, UC Berkeley successfully ran its own health plan. The campus should return to that model.

But the campus running its own health plan does not mean it is entirely immune to the problems that UC SHIP faced. Moving forward, it is imperative that campus administrators pay close attention to understanding what went wrong with UC SHIP so that the campus does not repeat those mistakes.

In the end, the final decision on whether UC Berkeley should withdraw from UC SHIP rests with Birgeneau. Given the commendable community input and public dialogue that has taken place so far, his choice is obvious. The campus would be better off on its own.

The post Abandon SHIP appeared first on The Daily Californian.

A variety of factors could explain CalSERVE’s ascendance this year. First, a new limit on party spending probably helped to level the playing field for all candidates. To that end, the fact that SQUELCH! departed from its largely satirical past and ran an entirely serious senate slate in addition to nominating a presidential candidate cannot be ignored. This year, SQUELCH! became a legitimate alternative to the two strongest student political parties, providing voters with more diverse choices.

While students saw SQUELCH! and CalSERVE reinventing themselves, Student Action remained unflinchingly static. But CalSERVE’s biggest strength over the other parties was its organization and the caliber of its candidates.

When thousands of students elected CalSERVE candidates to three of the four main executive offices and seven of the 20 senate seats, they voted for a party with a clear set of values. Where Student Action seemed vague and unimaginative, CalSERVE successfully delivered a strong message centered around progressive politics that resonated well with the student body. CalSERVE’s newly elected executives and senators are passionate leaders who will not shy away from taking decisive stances on tough political issues. Students know where they stand.

Yet the CalSERVE elected officials must also be wary of becoming too divisive. Debate around the ASUC Senate’s controversial divestment bill last week has reinforced in students’ minds how easily the campus climate can be strained and fractured. At the same time that they work to uphold their beliefs, the CalSERVE officials — especially the incoming executives — must try to build coalitions among all students.

Similarly, they will be largely responsible for setting the tone for the ASUC’s relationship with incoming chancellor Nicholas Dirks. As promised during the campaign,  they will need to establish a strong connection with Dirks that keeps him visible and accountable to student interests.

The students who voted in the ASUC election spoke loud and clear this year: They supported the promise of a change in leadership. Now, CalSERVE must deliver on its mandate.

The post CalSERVE’s call to action appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Students have every right to voice concerns about how the university spends their tuition dollars. But the framing of SB 160, which passed with 11 senators supporting it and nine against it, neglected to fully incorporate important perspectives, thereby alienating many Jewish students on campus and effectively worsening campus climate. The bill’s authors should have engaged in more dialogue with leaders of different communities about how to best represent all students on this subject.

While the bill was noble in its efforts to condemn human rights violations, some of its rhetoric and the resulting marginalization of many Jewish students will ultimately produce more harm than good.

A complex issue like this divestment bill necessitates a lengthier discussion. The authors of SB 160 and SB 158,  an alternate bill that suggests investing in support of a two-state resolution instead of divestment, have been working on their respective legislation for a long time, but the issue was only brought to the public last week. Senators should have provided more room for public input to ensure that the authors of the bills would consider the entire spectrum of viewpoints prior to introducing a divisive bill. Instead, SB 160 immediately put students of various perspectives and backgrounds on the defensive. Divestment should not be decided in a sprint.

And therein lies this round of divestment’s main problem: It presented as dichotomous an issue that warrants a more nuanced approach. Almost immediately, Wednesday’s meeting devolved into an us-versus-them mentality, with people on both sides of the room trying to discredit the arguments of those on the other. This is due at least in part to the fact that the campus community was not given sufficient time to attempt to find common ground before pressing forward on divestment. Passing a bill that represents the opinion of UC Berkeley students in an area as divisive as this one deserves more than a week in the public consciousness.

A truly representative process would be more gradual in its approach. First, it would require student leaders from groups that have traditionally opposed each other on divestment to make an effort to come up with an action they could all support. Comments made at Wednesday’s meeting indicate that never happened. And public input should have been solicited much earlier. If that sounds time-consuming, it would be. If it sounds like wishful thinking, it might be. Yet, at the very least, building up the divestment conversation would likely result in a more productive, carefully thought-out version of the divestment bill.

For all of SB 160’s flaws, the other divestment-related bill the senate is considering, SB 158, is not a completely adequate response. One of its major flaws is that it comes off as attempting to speak for the best interests of communities that are not reflected in the bill’s authorship. More than that, though, the bill — which was tabled by the senate this week — is too reactionary to pass. Some of its advocates may argue otherwise, but the bill would certainly not exist were it not for SB 160. A true alternative to the divestment bill is one that could stand on its own. SB 158 served a useful purpose in offering another option aside from SB 160 but did little to substantively address the issues raised by the divestment bill.

Still, SB 158 could provide an opportunity to fully integrate multiple perspectives into the discussion. As they stand right now, the two bills are not compatible with each other, and, as evidenced by the responses they elicited at this week’s meeting, neither bill reflects a balanced view of the issues at hand. But the message behind SB 158 — an emphasis on peace over division — should be one that all senators can agree on.

This ASUC divestment debate is likely to have a similar effect on campus as it did three years ago. In 2010, the senate passed a similar bill, only to see it vetoed by then-ASUC president Will Smelko. After several senate meetings to overturn the veto — an attempt that was unsuccessful — communities on all sides were unsatisfied. This time around, a comparable divide is forming that threatens to undermine efforts to improve campus climate.

Ultimately, the passage of the divestment bill leaves lingering tensions that the ASUC must work to resolve in some way. The impact of SB 160’s passage will be felt most immediately on campus, where many students already feel isolated and unwanted. Moving forward, the ASUC needs to make a proactive attempt to alleviate the ongoing friction among students that this divestment solicits. Until campus communities can find a way to come together, divestment will continue to drive us further and further apart.

The post The divestment dilemma appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The $15 million facility is set to be constructed adjacent to the Tang Center on Bancroft Way in order to take some pressure off the overcrowded Spieker Aquatics Complex and provide more space to train student athletes. Its strongest selling points are that it will allow more students to use the Spieker complex and that it is being funded entirely by a private donor group called Cal Aquatic Legends.

But as it stands right now, the new aquatic center is not completely in sync with the surrounding environment. First of all, the campus intends to build it on a parking lot, taking away about 180 parking spaces in a part of the city where parking is already impacted. The UC Board of Regents should not approve the project until an adequate resolution to that problem has been offered.

Similarly, the project likely does not align with the city’s Southside Plan. A March draft subsequent environmental impact report for the proposed aquatic center acknowledged that the facility could conflict with the Southside Plan’s vision for how land in the area should be used. For example, two local business leaders requested in a letter included with the EIR that the space contain “retail, service, cultural, or other interactive pedestrian opportunities.” Proponents of the new facility need to prove how its construction will positively impact the quality of life for all Southside residents.

So far, officials have also indicated that the new facility would be primarily a training center, but the community might receive the project better if it hosted all aquatic competitions, allowing for increased access to the Spieker complex. No matter what, as plans continue to develop, the proponents of the new facility must work closely with local officials to make sure that Berkeley as a city benefits from another campus aquatic center.

Overall, the project is promising. As demonstrated by UC Berkeley’s dominating presence at the Olympics last year, the campus’s aquatic athletic programs are a huge source of pride for students. They deserve state-of-the-art facilities so they can continue to attract top-tier talent. Yet the new center would do more than service some of the campus’s best athletes: By easing the burden on the Spieker pool, it would allow more people to use campus aquatic facilities. Because of this, the project would be a net gain for the campus.

The post Aquatic promise and conflict appeared first on The Daily Californian.

When former ASUC president Noah Stern was charged before the ASUC Judicial Council three years ago, the election rules seemed anything but just. Stern, who ran with Student Action, was found guilty of voting on behalf of another student, yet the bylaws did not allow for punishment severe enough to remove him from office. That, on top of the fact that both Student Action and CalSERVE agreed to only pursue certain charges against each other, gave the impression that the ASUC’s major student political parties did not take the rules seriously. And they could get away with it.

Now, the rules are tighter. A party spending limit of about $2,600 will make the election more accessible to third-party and independent candidates. An election-finance commission is watching over political spending in the election. Student Action and CalSERVE’s indication that they will not agree to withhold certain charges against each other is perhaps the most heartening development yet.

Abolishing charge-trading between the two parties should give candidates on both sides greater incentive to not break any rules in the first place. Whereas in the past, candidates may have written off the importance of election rules because charge-trading provided a kind of safety net, now, they have a stronger incentive to act honestly. They are far more likely to be held personally accountable if they break the rules. From the perspective of students outside the ASUC party machines, this instills a greater sense of legitimacy to the elections because it forces candidates to place more value in abiding by election regulations.

One justification for the agreement between CalSERVE and Student Action was that without it, a “battle of censures” would result. However, because the attorney general has the discretion to prosecute charges, such a situation is unlikely to occur. With the end of charge-trading, it is the responsibility of the attorney general to determine the appropriate charges to pursue.

That it has taken this long to end charge-trading is extremely unfortunate. A past attorney general or ASUC official should have taken decisive action on this matter sooner. Still, charge-trading’s demise is a good sign — one that must set a new precedent for years to come.

The post Improved ASUC elections appeared first on The Daily Californian.