Aid systems and development policy must support a system that is responsive to complex community-level needs because the labyrinth of water, sanitation and hygiene issues exists at the confluence of health, education and equity problems. Root causes of global economic and political instability are linked to poverty, inequality and unemployment. The rapid rise in global poverty has accompanied the rise of international security threats since the Cold War, according to anthropologist of development professor Akhil Gupta of the University of California, Los Angeles. Achieving human security in developing countries is paramount for reducing international security threats and goes beyond simply the absence of violent conflict — it means establishing basic access to essential services like water, sanitation and hygiene. The many competing human uses for water — personal consumption, agriculture, industry, and sanitation systems — combined with the lack of sufficient infrastructure in developing countries means that natural water systems (rivers, aquifers, streams and rainfall) cannot be abstracted from discussions of human and international security.

The 2006 United Nations Human Development Report found that people suffering from waterborne illnesses occupy over half of all hospital beds globally. Pathogens from dirty water result in diarrhea which still remains the leading killer of children younger than 5 years old — 1.8 million a year, or about 4,900 per day. Water-related illness alone causes 443 million missed school days per year. This means that for other development improvements to be met — including improving universal achievement of primary education, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health and eradicating extreme poverty and hunger – water, sanitation, and hygiene must be prioritized in the global policy and aid agenda.

While empirical data regarding the impact of aid on economic growth is mixed, the overall positive effects of aid specifically directed to the water sector are clear. A 2010 article in the Journal of Global Health used a country-level analysis to determine the relationship between official development assistance and improvements in access to water and sanitation. The results of this inquiry into aid effectiveness since the establishment of the Millennium Development Goals in 2000 shows that countries receiving official assistance are 4 to 18 times more likely to have access to improved water supply than countries without assistance. Furthermore, countries with the greatest gains in sanitation were up to nine times as likely to have greater reductions in infant and child mortality.

Although aid is not a panacea for the many complex problems plaguing developing countries, cutting aid for water and sanitation programs would cause significant harm. As the United Nations Security Council suggests, water security takes on a double meaning: It describes both sustainable access to the resource, and the absence of water as a contributor to conflict. Although the global community met the Millennium Development Goal target for safe drinking water, the World Health Organization found that 800 million people are still without clean water and 2 billion without basic sanitation. The momentum to increase access to safe drinking water and improve sanitation in water stressed countries cannot be lost now.

According to Stratfor, a global intelligence agency, Egypt has renewed threats to militarily engage in the event that Ethiopia continues plans to build a dam on the Nile. This example is an indicator for a larger looming security crisis according to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who conveyed the findings of a Defense Intelligence Agency report this September at the United Nations roundtable on water security. Clinton warned that “demand for water will go up, but our fresh water supplies will not keep pace,” increasing the threat of instability within and between states.

Criticism about the infusion of aid to the transitional governments in the unstable regions is not unfounded, but reducing or blocking aid to water stressed countries could heighten tensions rooted in anxiety over reliable access to water. Middle Eastern and North African countries continue to be the worst off in terms of human and economic development indicators, including access to water and sanitation. USAID recently reported that only 27 percent of Afghanis have access to safe drinking water, and 12 percent to adequate sanitation, while two-thirds of water is lost through decrepit infrastructure. Aid directed at improving infrastructure in neglected areas for water and sanitation could significantly improve health, education and human security in such regions.

The BBC estimates that for developed countries and Brazil, Russia, India and China alone, “$800 billion per year will be required by 2015 to cover investments in water infrastructure, a target likely to go unmet.” According to a recent Guardian Global Development article, the developing world will be home to 29 megacities with more than 10 million residents by 2025; therefore, improving infrastructure in these areas to meet the growing demand for water will be crucial. As rainfall becomes more unpredictable and devastating floods continue as a consequence of global climate change, directed aid could reduce conflict in water-stressed countries that are politically and economically volatile.

There are many ways that Cal students can engage with critical water issues. UC Berkeley is transforming into a hub for water-based community engaged research, advocacy, and activism. A number of DeCals all offer opportunities for students. The Berkeley Water Group is a student-driven think tank and research collaborative aiming to nurture ideas and innovation. Many research opportunities, particularly though the Undergraduate Research Apprenticeship program, are beginning to focus more water, health and environmental issues.

Whether students work domestically or abroad on water issues, any solutions must be tied to the environmental, economic, social and cultural realities.

In a world with more cell-phones than toilets, improving access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene is both a strategic investment and a moral imperative. The post-9/11 world forces a re-examination of the relationship between human security and global poverty. Development policy changes in the global north, rather than charity, that prioritize water, sanitation and hygiene will contribute to healthy people, thriving ecosystems and sustainable economies in the future. International security necessitates meeting the basic needs of those in developing countries, especially the most basic resource to sustain life: water.

Rebecca Peters is a junior at UC Berkeley and a 2013 Truman and Udall Scholar.

Contact the opinion desk at opinion@dailycal.org.

The post Water rights appeared first on The Daily Californian.

When my mother went to buy groceries in the market, she was not allowed to touch the produce because she was considered a “dirty Jew.” These are only a few indicators of the systematic oppression of the Iranian Jews, some of the oldest inhabitants of Persia. At the age of 20, she was forced to abandon her life in Iran as her family was scattered across the world. My grandmother, Mamanjani, was never allowed to return home because of her active involvement in Jewish organizations. Though she had no ties to any other government, she was warned not to go home for fear of execution without trial. Despite calling Persia home for 2,500 years, in 1979, my family and many Jewish families like my own were forced to forced to flee their homes. My family’s home, business and property was confiscated. We were torn from our homes, forced to flee to whichever country would take us in.

Though these experiences define me, some students on our campus seem to think my history does not count. During the “divestment” meeting two weeks ago, Students for Justice in Palestine tweeted about those opposed to divestment: “the Zizis are literally white people crying about their privilege, lol.” Apparently, Zizi is SJP shorthand for Zionist. And later, Daily Cal Blogger Noah Kulwin discussed a clear division he seems to see between “students of color” and “Jewish students,” implying that Jewish students like me cannot be considered students of color. I am here to address ignorance about what truly defines the Jewish people. Amid claims — or rather accusations — of “privilege” or the inability of Jews to understand the plight of “colored people,” I realized many people on this campus are unaware of who the Jewish people actually are.

My story is not unique among those who stood against divestment. Many of my peers who spoke against divestment come from families that experienced similar persecution before making it to America. For some, it was the Iraqi Farhud, where hundreds of Jews were killed and injured as Baghdad’s Jewish community was destroyed. For others, it was the oppression Jews faced under Soviet rule in Russia. And for others still, it was the Holocaust of Eastern Europe. But although they come from different corners of the globe, these Jewish students are here for a single reason: because making it to America was the difference between a new life and death in the countries they used to call home.

In the second half of the 20th century, millennia-old Jewish communities throughout the Middle East and North Africa were completely destroyed. The number of Middle Eastern Jewish refugees like my parents is on par with the number of Palestinian refugees following the Arab-Israeli War of 1948.

Not every Iranian Jew achieved asylum in America. For those who were not fortunate enough to make it here, Israel was the only country to which refugees could go. That’s what it means to have a Jewish State. It is a place — the only place — Jews like my family are guaranteed security. For our senate to refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State means that they are refusing to acknowledge my right to a place where my family, and others like me, are safe.

The pro-divestment movement wants you to believe that its cause is a struggle between the ethnic minority Palestinians and the “white” and “privileged” Jews and Israelis. By pretending that Jews are white Europeans, they argue that Israelis are foreign occupiers. But Jews are not a homogenous group of white people; we are an ethnically Middle Eastern people, comprising many unique communities from across the globe. After centuries of persecution, we have found security in this country and in our nation’s first home, Israel. And although we have achieved the privilege of statehood, our personal histories are defined by our recent struggles.

If there is one thing we can accomplish at a university, it is to educate ourselves. It shames me to see students at one of the most prestigious universities in the world denying the oppression of my people. True justice comes from recognizing the struggles and stories of every student. It is both offensive and counterproductive to define the ethnicity and history of another student group for political gain. Each student, regardless of race, ethnicity, color or creed, faces unique circumstances. To alter a commonly used sentiment on this campus, we all must check our prejudices.

Aryella Moreh is a student at UC Berkeley.

The post Keeping prejudice under control appeared first on The Daily Californian.

It looks something like Chancellor Robert Birgeneau’s statement that was recently released in response to SB 160, the ASUC bill that calls for targeted divestment from companies complicit in Israeli apartheid and illegal settlement.

Birgeneau explained his opposition to SB 160 just hours after the student senate passed the bill but waited over two weeks to condemn an April 1 assault on a Students for Justice in Palestine member.

The SJP member was publicly attacked in Sproul Plaza for vocally affirming Israel’s status as an apartheid state – a description which notable figures like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, award-winning author Alice Walker, former President Jimmy Carter and former Israeli attorney general Michael Ben-Yair agree with.

When the chancellor is quick to condemn a decision by the student senate majority but drags his feet before condemning an assault on a SJP member, it should be obvious which group is being marginalized.

Moreover, the chancellor downplays the severity of the assault by writing in his statement that the SJP member was “struck in the face.” In reality, the SJP member was punched in the face with a closed fist and knocked to the ground by a much larger assailant. The blow was so forceful that a witness reported shortly after the assault that the assailant’s knuckles were bleeding.

Birgeneau’s statement was insensitive, and it employed victim-blaming rhetoric. He argued that it was the divestment campaign that caused a divisive, hostile climate on campus. Nothing could be further from the truth. Divestment is in actuality an effective, nonviolent and legitimate tactic in the struggle against Israeli apartheid.

The chancellor argued that the campus is divided, but who stands on which side?

Thirty-one student organizations endorsed targeted divestment from Israeli apartheid, but Birgeneau sided with a small number of pro-Zionist students. It should be clear that the major division is not within the student body but between students and the administration.

To continue employing rhetoric that builds on a narrative of conflict between “students of color” and “Jewish students” is to disregard developing bonds of solidarity between Palestinian students and diverse networks of allies, including Jewish and Israeli students who supported SB 160.

Even Noah Kulwin, an opponent of SB 160, stated in a Daily Californian opinion blog that Palestine solidarity activists are constantly “demonized,” “delegitimized” and held to an unfair “double standard.” When Palestine activists face hostility, their victimhood is often removed from them, and they are blamed for their own victimization. Merely holding a political opinion is perceived as hostile, and violent reactions to such a “hostile” political opinion are seen as a natural reaction — as if saying violent response to Palestine solidarity activism is only to be expected. As if saying divestment is to blame for violent reactions – not the perpetrators of such violence. Such is the underlying rhetoric being employed in the aftermath of the inexcusable assault on a member of SJP.

UC Berkeley has a rich history of activism – from the Free Speech Movement to the Third World Liberation Front to the divestment campaigns against South African apartheid – that we should ultimately be proud of. What many of us take for granted today – free speech, ethnic studies and the end of South African apartheid – were once deemed “controversial,” publicly demonized and met with repression from authorities.

Whereas the campus administration has repeatedly attempted to suppress students’ activism and democracy, students and community members have nonetheless persisted in connecting many struggles in our own community to the struggle for justice in Palestine. There is a clear connection between American imperialism allied with Israel in the Middle East and the austerity, racism, militarization and violence here in the United States.

We say no to Israeli apartheid and illegal settlement. We say no to victim-blaming and the scapegoating of divestment. We demand recognition and reversal of these policies, and we stand as students united in solidarity for justice in Palestine – and for justice at our school.

Ley Cerezo is a sophomore at UC Berkeley and Alex Schmaus is a current student at Berkeley City College.

The post Coming together for campus justice appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Most senators know, or at least should know, about Article IX, Section 2, Clause A, of the ASUC Constitution. It states: “The ASUC Senate, the Judicial Council, and the Graduate Assembly shall not take action on any main motion unless and until that motion has been publicly posted for at least one week.” But no materials were posted in advance for the SB 160 meeting and, in fact, this lack of public notification has been the standard operating procedure all year. So here’s my question: Why did the ASUC Senate even discuss SB 160 – or SB 158, for that matter – if no agenda was published? In fact, why did the ASUC Senate take action on most things this year if the agendas were hardly ever published on time? Technically, it’s  all unconstitutional… rendering the 10-hour Senate meeting to discuss SB 160 entirely inane.

That’s not the only problem. The ASUC website is a mess: It still, for example, says the Senate meets at Eshleman Hall … last I checked, Eshleman isn’t really accessible. Bills up for consideration aren’t published until after they’re approved. But most importantly, ASUC agendas aren’t being published in advance. In my role as a staff member for a nearby local government, part of my job involves posting city agendas week after week. And sometimes, I admit, it seems like a waste of time. I’ve even asked myself: “Who the hell reads this? Who the hell cares?” But those questions are beside the point. It’s the government’s obligation to serve the people and to follow the guidelines and rules it puts foward in its bylaws. And I believe the people have the right to know what’s going on – especially at UC Berkeley, where students often take pride in their activism and involvement.

About two weeks ago, a day before an ASUC meeting, a friend asked multiple senators about the meeting location. They all replied, “I don’t know.” I understand that Lower Sproul is under development and that many events are being shuffled around, but that’s no excuse for the senate’s failure to communicate properly with the students it claims to serve.

We live in an era of transparency. Everyone cries for it. The senate even passed “A Bill in Support of Transparency, Accountability, and Enforcement” earlier this year. Yet, for some reason, the ASUC fails time and again to follow its own rules. The meeting on SB 160 brought the room to maximum occupancy, so it’s safe to assume that a decent portion of the UC Berkeley community knew about it.

But what about the less controversial topics that may well affect students more than the ASUC striking down foreign policy? Isn’t it our right to know about those issues too?

Surprisingly, only after I casually brought up the notion of taking legal action with ASUC staff members did agendas get posted, and even that took place days after the fact.

The crafters of the ASUC Constitution thought the community should know what the senate is doing. That’s why Article IX, Section 2, exists. I believe the current senate should act in accordance with this founding principle. I call upon the new ASUC Senate, the executive officials and their staff to take responsibility for their actions, and stop hiding behind unpublished agendas. Be transparent and accountable. You care about this school and what happens with it. So have some respect for the rest of us, who care too, and let us know what the ASUC is up to.

Nir Maoz is a freshman at UC Berkeley.

Correction(s):
A previous version of this op-ed incorrectly stated that ASUC Senate office manager Jordan Tauber sent no agenda packet on the day of a April 17 ASUC meeting scheduled to discuss SB 160. In fact, Jordan Tauber did send out an agenda packet to ASUC senators and other members of the campus community listing SB 160 as a special order item.

The post Demanding transparency from the ASUC appeared first on The Daily Californian.

Unfortunately, a critical op-ed about the project (“Aquatics center sinks and does not swim”) misconstrued and/or misrepresented so many of the facts that we must set the record straight.

The critique claimed that the project will benefit only student-athletes, and that is demonstrably false. Currently, despite the fact that the Spieker Aquatics Complex is open at least 15 hours a day, seven days a week, it is bursting at the seams. That pool is used by our intercollegiate swimming, diving and water polo teams, as well as campus and community recreational swimmers, master’s swimmers, and PE classes, such as SCUBA. It is clear the campus needs “more water.”

Once the new pool opens, the intercollegiate programs will move many of their practices and some of their competitions to the new location, freeing up capacity at Spieker and making it possible to better accommodate hundreds of student, faculty, staff and community swimmers. There are also plans to host camps, clinics and other special events at the new facility that will be available to all.

The new aquatics center will, of course, help our competitive teams, some of which have been practicing at Stanford due to a lack of facilities here. Together, Cal’s aquatics programs have combined for 20 NCAA national championships, while students and alumni brought home 13 Olympic medals – including nine gold – from London. That is a level excellence and achievement we want to support, whether it is happening in a classroom, laboratory or swimming pool.

The critics also ignore the reality of university construction projects: We often go to great lengths to support relatively small groups affiliated with a particular academic discipline or area of research. In recent years, we have either completed or started work on a wide range of construction projects, including the Li Ka Shing Center for Biomedical and Health Sciences, the new Berkeley Art Museum and the Energy Biosciences Institute, that support the academic interests of some of our students and faculty, but certainly not all. This is just the way it should be: a capital projects strategy supporting individual endeavors that, in the aggregate, form and serve a broader community.

Erroneous assertions related to financing for the project must also be corrected. The author presumes that the aquatics center financial model is similar to that used for the

Simpson Center for Student-Athlete High Performance. If we had been contacted prior to publication, we would have been more than happy to explain this is wrong. Simply put, this project is being financed in the same manner as a recent academic project – the Blum Center –e  whereby construction cannot and will not proceed until 100% of the donor financing is secured and recorded.

Beyond the unfounded criticisms directed at the aquatic center, the op-ed in question attempts to bolster its opposition to the project by claiming this is a campus in decline, with little investment in infrastructure, academic offerings and other high-priority programs. Here too the facts point to a different reality.

Since the adoption of our Long Range Development Plan in 2005, we have completed nearly one million new square feet of academic space in Stanley Hall, Sutardja Dai Hall, Starr East Asia Library, Li Ka Shing Center, Law School Addition, Blum Hall and the Energy Biosciences Building. Today, the new Campbell Hall, Berkeley Art Museum and Lower Sproul Project are all under construction.

Despite dramatic cuts in state capital funding, since 2011 we have actually increased our expenditure on renewal and replacement activities by 50% to $30 million per annum, and we have set aside another $15 million dedicated to meet new program capital needs.

During this same period we have also invested millions to expand academic offerings, resulting in over 700 new primary classes and 1,000 new secondary sections in common curriculum courses. “Time to degree” on the Berkeley campus has dropped, the average debt load for graduating students is among the lowest in the country, we have more low income students than ever and there is a new middle class financial aid program. At the same time, our faculty retention rates are at or above historical averages, even as we continue to successfully recruit new members.

Does this sound like a campus in decline? No, because Berkeley has weathered the recent financial storms and state budget cuts remarkably well. I can only hope that all of us who are responsible for providing students, faculty and staff with what they need to succeed can, in the future, engage in balanced, factual assessments of our programs, plans and priorities.

John Wilton is the UC Berkeley vice chancellor for administration and finance.

Contact the opinion desk at opinion@dailycal.org or follow us on Twitter: @dailycalopinion.

The post Proposed aquatics center aids campus appeared first on The Daily Californian.

In my eyes, the answer lies in a respect for party differences and increased collaboration both inside and outside the senate chambers. This year’s senate class achieved many notable (even tripartisan) accomplishments; however, it would be naive to ignore the countless times party egos, power struggles and bloc voting inhibited a productive and inclusive conversation and marginalized communities lacking political power. I firmly believe that next year’s class can do better if they read between the lines of the election results and see that this year’s elections were not simply a victory for CalSERVE or a loss for Student Action. This year’s elections were a wake-up call to our entire student government that elected officials should stand for something more than just a party; the ASUC must represent the under-represented, and parties should focus less on the political game and more on the political collaboration that drives tangible results for students.

A record voter turnout, a mixed-party executive cabinet, and a senate in which no major party holds a majority demonstrate that our student body is ready to move beyond pure party politics. Party and community collaboration will not be easy, but to be successful, the incoming executives and senators from all parties must be willing to proactively work with other parties and communities to accomplish their legislative and advocacy goals.

As SQUELCH!’s candidate for ASUC president, I strived to demonstrate my enthusiasm for cross-community collaboration. If elected, I wanted all students on this campus to know my door was open to them regardless of their party and that I was willing to learn about the issues impacting their communities. From the very start of my campaign, I made it a priority to reach beyond my own communities by participating in multiple town halls, meeting with various community leaders and making my campaign an opportunity to learn about the issues facing all communities at Cal, regardless of the parties they traditionally affiliate with. Despite my narrow loss of the ASUC presidential race, I think SQUELCH!’s efforts to change the discourse regarding Cal’s party politics impacted this year’s election for the better. But this impact will only lead to tangible positive change if our newly elected ASUC officials respond with action to the campus’s call for collaboration.

This cross-party collaboration can take on many different forms. For example, elected officials can increase the number of projects that bring communities together, such as the ASUC Perspectives Showcase, and co-author more legislation. They can work together to create and institutionalize a nonpartisan, multicommunity/organization advisory council to the ASUC. And, most importantly, they can simply ensure that senators have mutual respect for one another during contentious conversations. None of this will be possible until all of the involved parties respect each other’s work and recognize the importance of what they each uniquely contribute to the campus and their respective communities.

Furthermore, increased party collaboration opens up new opportunities for senators and executives to engage directly with communities that are not their own – to build partnerships between constituencies traditionally represented by different parties. And, by doing so, commit to making this university a smaller, more closely knit campus. Next year’s leaders should and must seize this moment.

The bottom line is that Cal’s political parties are not going anywhere, and all of them deserve a seat at the table. While Student Action can’t possibly represent “every student, every year,” it does represent thousands of students, holds 10 out of 25 elected positions and has demonstrated strong leadership over the last few years. CalSERVE may be strictly beholden to a progressive political ideology that excludes some students, but the coalition work it does hold our administration and lawmakers accountable to the diverse community that makes Cal the No. 1 public university in the world.  And, despite much speculation, SQUELCH! is not trying to “squelch” the big parties. Instead, we strive to provide a third-party perspective to the often two-party-dominated ASUC conversation to remind our student leaders that their responsibility lies with the student body, not a party, and to stand for a more productive ASUC. If we can finally accept that a truly representative ASUC is one that incorporates a combination of Student Action, CalSERVE, SQUELCH! and independents, then we can establish a respectful relationship that allows for a more collaborative and productive ASUC.

The composition of next year’s ASUC is not an accident. The incoming elected officials have a responsibility to recognize that they have been given a unique position to foster a drastically more collaborative and less partisan ASUC that can more effectively serve the entire student body. The rhetoric of one party or one community’s political domination at the expense of another is simply counterproductive and must end. During one of the most pivotal moments in the history of higher education – especially in the history of this institution – now more than ever is the time to come together, realize that we all share a passion for this campus and serving our communities, and do the work we were elected to do.

Jason Bellet is an ASUC senator with the SQUELCH! party.

Contact the opinion desk at opinion@dailycal.org or follow us on Twitter: @dailycalopinion.

The post With ASUC elections over, what comes next? appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The search for your own dreams and goals can be as arduous as pursuing one can be. Some find it even before they first walk beneath the neon green Sather Gate; others still search for it between the layers of Yale blue mortarboards at Memorial Stadium. I, like many of you, am still searching for my raison d’etre. Traversing the beaten path between Evans and Stephens, I ponder about my dreams and goals and agonize about the lack of thereof. I tried many things to nudge myself toward a destination, but I still end up wandering around as if I were a freshman trapped in Dwinelle. Even if I don’t know what I am to do with this life I have, with the tools I have been honing in and outside of the classroom, I know what wonders having a dream can have.

I have seen people working tirelessly to give back to the community something they may have been blessed by in their lives. Others, despite what they study under the sun, still pursue, under the moonlight, art and expression, their sweat and tears consecrating the ground at Lower Sproul, Spieker Plaza, Hearst Gym, Dwinelle or Wurster. I have talked with truly inspired and passionate people who have pursued their dreams even if it means taking three majors in three years and sleeping three hours a night. I will not lie; their passion and dedication is inspiring, but it also sparks a slight sensation of envy within me. We as students and human beings need something to keep us going through the hard times, to inspire us to keep going forward and not look back. From the estimated 35,000 students who walk, study and live between Oxford and Piedmont, Bancroft and Hearst, many still wander around searching for their true callings, dreams, goals and ideals. And it isn’t easy — we expose ourselves to different experiences, and sometimes it may suit our fancy. Sometimes it may not excite us at all, and we return to square one, feeling more lost than we have felt before, questioning whether we can really successfully find what we’re looking for.

But it is the struggle for that dream, the constant exposure to novelty, new experiences, people, events and communities that truly allows us to see what suits our fancy. For some, it may be serving the community; others, exploration of the unknown, finding and crossing the frontiers of human knowledge or simply settling down and enjoying life’s simplicity one day at a time.

To all those who have found their dream, goal, ambition: Keep going. However long the road may be, keep going, for it is one thing that in the end can truly make us feel that our time on this Earth was worthwhile.
For those, like me, who still try to find our calling: We’re still alive, we still breathe. So with each breath, we should try to find something that can truly make us survive the grueling nights at our desks writing essays, reading research papers, debugging thousands of lines of code or solving complex equations for problem sets. Even if we don’t find it tomorrow, next week, month, semester or year, it will be worth the trouble.

Nghia-Piotr T Le is a third year at UC Berkeley.

The post Struggling to accomplish goals appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The chancellor’s concern about the “rancor and divisiveness” caused by the divestment vote (Daily Cal, April 18) reveals little sensitivity to the role of the university as a forum for discussing and debating controversial issues. The univeresity has a proud tradition of hosting such debates but often in conflict with the administration. It was here at Cal in 1964 that civil rights activists sought to fundraise and recruit students for civil rights work in the South by setting up in tables in Sproul Plaza, activity later generations of student activists have taken for granted. But in 1964, this tabling activity was banned by chancellor’s office, citing university regulations prohibiting advocacy of political causes at Cal other than for the Democratic or Republican parties.  This effort by to muzzle Free Speech led to the famous sit-in at Sproul Hall in 1964, the arrests of hundreds of UC students and the birth of the Free Speech Movement.
Later that decade, Cal students, often at great personal cost, protested the war in Vietnam, seeking to end campus ROTC. In the following years, Cal students protested apartheid in South Africa, other causes and more recently, Berkeley Law professor John Yoo’s key role in justifying the use of torture in Iraq.

In the course of all these protest activities, always the administration has complained, just as the chancellor has done in relation to the divestment debate, that these issues were “divisive,” that activists were disrupting the peaceful, “civil” atmosphere they say fosters learning and the educational mission of the university.  Indeed, all of these protest movements were vigorously opposed by other students and faculty who complained that the protesters threatened something the UC administration now refers to as the “campus climate.” But what the chancellor forgets, in echoing the complaints of those who took offense at the “divisiveness” caused by the FSM, Vietnam War protests and now, the divestment debate, is that advocacy for social change almost always is somewhat “divisive”  and inevitably offends those resisting change. The university is not well served by what author Christina Hoff-Sommers describes as the growing “tyranny of niceness” at U.S. universities.

The UC administration also does a disservice to campus community when it weighs in on this debate by describing the divestment vote as “not a positive force for (the) campus climate” or “rais(ing) passions without moving the issues perceptibly forward.” (Daily Cal, April 24). Without question, the controversy on all UC campuses over divestment and Israel-Palestine stirs strong passions on both sides. But that passion should inspire, not stifle, debate and discussion here at the university over the serial wars in the Middle East, the failures of U.S. foreign policy there and the dire consequences especially for Palestinians.
Equally unavailing is the chancellor’s complaint that criticism of Israel is one-sided and the not so-veiled accusation underlying this complaint that this “one-sidedness” reflects anti-Semitism. Even the insinuation of that charge raises rather than dampens, the “temperature” on the campus relative to these issues. Understandably, those opposing Apartheid in South Africa spent most of their energies seeking change there and not elsewhere. And one can oppose North Korea without “balancing” one’s views with criticism of South Korea.

To be clear, many of the students protesting Israeli policies are sharply critical of the anti-democratic policies of Israel’s Arab neighbors – hence the near-universal celebration of the Arab Spring within the pro-divestment community. But there is no “equal criticism” burden on the exercise of First Amendment rights. And it is entirely understandable why pro-divestment students focus on Israel: This conflict threatens world peace and drains enormous resources. But more fundamentally and from a moral perspective, support for Israel perpetuates the displacement of hundreds of thousands of refugees from the 1948 war, in clear contravention of international laws, and abides the continued and often very brutal occupation of the territories seized in 1967.

A few years ago, Chancellor Birgeneau climbed on top of a police car on Sproul Plaza to honor the legacy of Mario Savio and the Free Speech Movement. If the chancellor really respects UC Berkeley’s historic role as a forum for debate, he should encourage, not stand in the way of, vigorous advocacy for human rights and equality as exemplified by the divestment campaign, even if it upsets some members of the UC community.

Jewish Voices for Peace member Liz Jackson contributed to this op-ed.

Matt Ross is a UC Berkeley alum. Maggie Sager and Nathan Stuckey are members of Students for Justice in Palestine.

The post Palestinians deserve an open discussion appeared first on The Daily Californian.

The end of the semester brings with it a swarm of endless work, many sleepless nights, and interminable regrets about not mastering course material sooner. The end of the semester also brings with it a week of ostensible rest and review before the marathon of finals. This coveted time is known as Reading, Review, and Recitation week, or, more affectionately, “dead week.”

RRR week was instituted in the Fall 2009. For students, RRR week meant that they would have a full week to review and prep for final exams, giving them a little bit of reprieve from end-of-the-semester stress. For instructors, however, this scheduling change meant they had less time to impart the knowledge they would have liked to during the course of the semester. Because RRR week is relatively new in the history of the university, both faculty members and students may be unaware of RRR week guidelines.

In brief, here are the guidelines for RRR week:

• No final exams should be given before or during RRR week.
• Assignments that replace a final, such as a final paper, should not be due before or during RRR week.
• No mandatory class or review sessions should be held during RRR week, and instructors should not introduce new course material. Performance- and studio-based classes, such as theater, music and architecture, can be exempted from this guideline if the purpose of holding class is to allow scheduling flexibility for final presentations. Physical Education, however, is not considered a performance- based class, according to a determination made by the Academic Senate Committee on Course of Instruction – as such, physical education course instructors cannot hold mandatory classes during RRR week.
• Presentations of student assignments, such as capstone projects, poster sessions or group projects, are allowed during RRR week.

The ASUC Student Advocate’s Office has seen a wide array of potential RRR week violations in the fall 2012 semester alone. Because there exists no formal reporting mechanism through the university, it is unclear how many violations occur every semester. In addition, many students are reluctant to contact their professors directly to resolve potential violations, fearing that their grades may be negatively impacted.

This is where the student advocate’s office steps in. We are currently collecting data to monitor RRR week violations, both to spread awareness of RRR week guidelines, and to encourage general compliance among faculty. Having as much data as possible will allow us to identify trends in violations, which will help us improve our advocacy on behalf of students. Within just three days of opening our reporting form, we have received approximately 30 reports of potential violations. This demonstrates the lack of knowledge or compliance around RRR week guidelines.

As an office, we pride ourselves on confidentiality. Your submissions will be completely anonymous. While it is relatively late in the semester, if you would like to pursue an appeal based on an RRR week violation, we will pair you up with a case worker. We cannot guarantee a favorable outcome, in part because of the proximity to RRR week. However, many faculty members have been willing to accommodate RRR week guidelines once they have been notified of potential violations. In the meantime, please know that you must fulfill your academic obligations according to the professor’s rules unless the professor has explicitly stated that changes will be made to accommodate RRR week guidelines.

The student advocate’s office is committed to helping students with any problems with the university, including but not limited to student conduct, financial aid, grievance and academic problems. We wish you the very best in this final stretch of the semester.

For RRR week-related questions and other issues, please email us at help@berkeleysao.org. You can also take a break from studying and join us for finals snacks in front of Moffitt Library on May 10 and 11 at 7 P.M. We will be handing out free doughnut holes, coffee, hot chocolate and pens while supplies last!

Stacy Suh is the Student Advocate. Mondee Lu is an academic division caseworker.

The post Make sure you follow the rules appeared first on The Daily Californian.

We’re told by Intercollegiate Athletics that the proposed Aquatics Center, to be built on what’s currently a parking lot adjacent to the Tang Student Health Center, is an “extremely generous” proposal on the part of private donors (referred to as “Cal Aquatic Legends”), who have engaged to raise all necessary money. We’re told that Berkeley’s pool facilities pale in comparison with those of Stanford and that the pool facilities we have are too crowded. Forced to share Spieker Pool with other students, faculty and community members, the swimmers and divers who compete for Berkeley on an intercollegiate level can only practice at certain times, which limits their opportunity to elect certain major fields of study.

Why should we look this gift horse in the mouth?

With the new Aquatics Center, intercollegiate athletes would no longer have to share. We’re told that the proposed new facility would be for the exclusive use of intercollegiate athletes and certain illustrious alumni. Thus the proposal is parallel in concept to the recently completed Student Athlete High Performance Center near Memorial Stadium and Memorial Grove. When that project was first proposed, the Cal community was also promised that it would be funded entirely through private donations; in 2006, we were told that $90 million was “in the bank.” We know now that only $29 million was raised through private donations. Instead, the university is in debt for that facility alone (not counting Memorial Stadium) to the tune of $124 million.

It’s probably true that better facilities and resources aid performance. But shouldn’t we be applying that principle first to the 99 percent of Berkeley students who are not intercollegiate athletes, and to the object of academic performance? Instead, a valuable public resource (the land granted to the university to educate California’s citizens) would be diverted to serve the interests of only a few. Even if the construction costs of the proposed Aquatics Center are entirely covered by private donations, the plans for the building effectively monopolize that space, excluding 99 percent of the Berkeley community from its usufruct.

Wherever we turn today, we read that the “bricks and mortar” university is no longer viable – that it’s too costly and denies access to high-quality education. At Berkeley, we’re all too familiar with the crumbling of bricks and mortar; after nearly every winter rainstorm, one can find pieces of mortar or peeling paint along with puddles in some of the campus’s most historic buildings, including the hallways and locker rooms of Hearst Gymnasium, the poor but beautiful elder sister of the Spieker complex. Faculty members try to teach and conduct research in deteriorating classrooms and laboratories. Donors, we are told, have no interest in funding the repair of existing facilities, in upgrading and greening the heating and plumbing systems. And the state’s declining support for the UC system makes even everyday maintenance a financial challenge. To respond to these challenges, the administration tries to find ways to cut costs — diminished library hours, fewer books bought, class enrollments shrunk to accommodate available classroom space and decreased numbers of ladder-rank faculty.

In this context, it’s not just the prospect of turning a parking lot into an athletic facility that galls. It’s the fact that the new facility will be for the exclusive use of a small number of intercollegiate athletes, some of whom already receive support in the form of athletic scholarships. The rest of the student body, as well as the faculty and the community, will still have access to existing facilities. But what’s to guarantee that “access” will actually be any more extensive? Where is the plan to provide more hours for recreational swimming, to pay for the requisite lifeguards and staff? It’s true that the Aquatics Center is planned for a space that’s currently a parking lot — hardly an inspired use of precious space (unless one considers the disinvestment in public transportation, which makes it difficult for many students, faculty and staff who live far from BART to get to campus except by car). But it’s not as if the University has worked with Alameda County to improve bus service or on its own to develop a shuttle service, despite the fact that available parking for faculty, staff and students has been seriously diminished by recent campus building projects. Moreover, the Environmental Impact Report filed for the Aquatics Center acknowledges that the project “conflicts with the existing applicable land use plan” as laid out in both the 2020 Long Range Development Plan and the South Side Plan.

Consider what’s happening here. It’s a perfect case of what’s called “the privatization of public resources.” Often “privatization” is represented as a benefit, the assumption being that “private enterprise” operates more efficiently than public entities that serve a larger constituency and often conform to a greater number of regulations (kind of like the difference between a car and a bus.) But we need to remember to ask who benefits from these supposed efficiencies. In the case of the Aquatics Center, UC Berkeley would be ceding land use — granted by the state for the benefit of all Californians — to a tiny fraction of athletes. Given past history, it is likely that students and taxpayers would end up financing a good portion of the costs.

And what of the net psychic costs? Although universities are imperfect institutions, traversed by all the economic, social and cultural inequalities of their historical moment, they also have their utopian aspect: the “oneness” implicit in the name; the sense that the accumulated resources of a university, intellectual and physical, are shared by all members of its community. That’s why a university’s libraries, grounds and buildings — its “bricks and mortar” — are still important because they provide a space for the exchange of knowledge as a common good and remind us that education is, at its best, a res publica — a public thing.

We should therefore ask the administration to halt planning and construction of the Aquatics Center until intercollegiate athletics demonstrates that it is a) actually, truly fully paid for by donors and b) a good use of collective public university resources at the present time, given that it will be used by a small fraction of the campus community for a nonacademic mission.

Celeste Langan is an associate professor of English at UC Berkeley.

Contact the opinion desk at opinion@dailycal.org.

The post Aquatics center sinks and does not swim appeared first on The Daily Californian.